He was charges with kid's gloves after the heat was put on him. The leader of the proud boys wasn't even in the state and he got decades(?) In prison for doing precisely what Epps did. But here's the thing. Every single person that was anywhere near the capital or had anything to do with that day are vilified so hard by the left. People can disagree on whether or not that vilification is warranted, but the fact that they're all vilified isn't disputable. I don't think anyone would even want to dispute that. So why was Epps instantly defended by the left/media? Based on how everyone else was viewed, logic suggests Epps would get viewed in a very negative way the moment that video circulated. But instead, he was defended by the same people who calls everyone else insurectionists. Even if he got cold feet like you suggest, he'd still spend jail time based on the punishment everyone else received.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
His video circulated, and slowly got more and more attention while everyone who is against the rioters(regardless of their rolls) defended him. The story refused to go away and eventually he was charged with something way more minor than people who did way less.
I've gotta see the whole video on that one. If someone has it it would be much appreciated.
Hay Man
Member
Trump on Liz Cheney
www.youtube.com
All of that stuff that you said is indisputable is in fact indisputable. But you can also say if Trump's plan was to protest the certification of the election to try to get it delayed, then you can say he has every right to do it. I talked before in another thread about my opinion on the rigged election depending entirely on Trump's information he had (which we unfortunately will never know). There were three options.
In option one, he knows it wasn't rigged and was completely lying. If that's the case, in my opinion he should never hold office again. You simply can not lie about something like that. Because of that, I understand why other people think that about him now. Because they are convinced he was straight up lying.
In option two, he thinks he won but isn't 100% sure. If that's the case, what he did was damn near exactly what he should have done. Try to delay the process of certification for as long as possible and eventually conceide due to lack of options.
In option three, he has information the public doesn't and is 100% certain that Biden stole the election. If that was the case, he didn't do near enough. If ever a president knows the election was stolen, the right thing to do is whatever it takes. You can't just say "aw shucks you got us". But again, that's only if there was some way for him to know without a doubt. And even if he did, the optics would be terrible because there's no way for the people to be as certain is him. There would always be people who doubted a president in that situation.
For the record, I believe the most obvious option is option two and I think he handled it about exactly how he should have.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
As I pointed out, I admittedly haven't done a deep dive in the events surrounding January 6 so am far from an expert, but at first glance - with everything I have seen or read - something seems very odd with how the Epps story unfolded.
When you factor in the level of rage and disgust that the event triggered, the decision by many in the media to come to his defense, and the long delay in bringing charges, defy logic and the ultimate conclusion is a non sequitur.
Thank you. Exactly what I assumed. He's saying she is a war monger and it's easy to send other people to their deaths from the comfort of Washington but it's a different story when you're the one with guns pointed at you. The meaning is blatantly obvious to me, so I'm not sure if it went over your head or for some reason you think it's still bad to say. I think it's the best point you can possibly make when talking about a politician who likes to start wars.Trump on Liz Cheney
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but when I watched the full footage of that portion of the interview, it was fairly obvious that what he was talking about was that's it's easy for decision makers behind the scenes to put troops in harms way when they're not the ones standing there with weapons of the enemy pointed back at them.Trump on Liz Cheney
I despise Trump, so I don't like to come to his defense, but he is frequently the victim of exaggeration and/or lack of proper context.
Stop Making Me Defend Donald Trump! | We The Internet TV
Meet Gary. He dislikes Donald Trump. But he also dislikes when people blatantly misrepresent Trump's words, actions, and policies in order to further their o...
www.youtube.com
I agree that was his point...but the very specific imagery he evoked of 9 rifles pointed at her sure sounds a lot like a firing squad. With his history of talking out of both sides of his mouth, combined with earlier suggestions that Liz Cheney face a military tribunal, you can see how some find this worrisome. But like I mentioned yesterday, I think this is another example of people making a big deal out of everything, which obscures some of the stuff that I feel should be getting more attention.
The Epps story is definitely weird. But hearing the FBI director testify in front of congress is even more weird. He refuses to answer if there were FBI agents in the crowd when the answer should be an easy no. If there was an FBI presence there, there are two points that should be made about it. One is that they very well may have instigated the crowd to cause a riot (Epps could certainly fall into that category). But that point is way harder to prove. I think the main point is that if there was an FBI presence there, that means they knew it was going to happen in advance and they could have easily beefed up security and stopped it from ever happening. That's where the whole "Trump tried to get extra security there and was denied by Pelosi" conversation comes in.
Now back to the instigating the crowd point. I heard Rogan talking about this once and found his point interesting. He says that a very common practice for dealing with protests is to plant agitators in the crowd to turn a harmless protest (one that could garner negative attention) into a riot. Once it's a riot, the cops can clean it up and everything they were protesting gets brushed under the rug. Rogan talked about certain events he named by name where the government and/or corporations used that method to eliminate resistance. Any good the protestors were trying to gain gets overshadowed by the riot that they "caused". I don't know enough about the situations he was directly referring to enough to form any opinion on whether they're known fact, conspiracy theories, or somewhere in the middle. But the logic for how it would work is very sound, and it would work so easily that I'd be shocked to find out it's actually never been tried.
So using that logic here, let's say for argument sake that's what happened. The democratic party knew of a huge protest that was going to take place during the election certification. The two options to deal with it would be to beef up security and just live with the optics of that many Americans having no trust in election integrity, or, provoke it into a riot and use it as political gain. Simultaneously stunting any negative optics a peaceful protest brings, and crushing Trump beyond repair in the eyes of millions of Americans.
Now, whether or not that's what actually happened, the results are exactly what they would want to achieve if they did decide to go that route. They completely shut down the negative optics towards them and brought all the negativity onto Trump. And if you think about it, that outcome was the only possible outcome of that riot. That scenario could play out a million times and in all million times, Trump walks away the loser and the villain. Not one time would he ever win there. Not without guns, which no one remembered to bring.
It's very similar to the "I'm going to protect women whether they like it or not" quote. In no world is that a bad thing to say, but his team knows how the media works and advised him not to say it that way. Trump obviously doesn't care about that, and as a president, he really should.
He was found guilty for libel for spreading lies about individuals that had no basis in fact. That is much different from making a claim of election interference. Those lies led to death threats and harassment. If I spread heinous lies about you related to child sex trafficking, and then you received death threats, but I claimed I wasn't lying, but just fighting against sex-trafficking...would you be cool with that?
Other Trump surrogates were sanctioned by courts for bringing cases that had no merit. You can't just make shit up in court.
Throughout this dicussion, I have been providing direct quotes, videos, news reports from primarily centrist or non-partisan sources, and DOJ filings...and you just say stuff. You are going entirely on your gut feelings and your ignorance of the involved systems. How can you not see that these things are not equal?
Any direct evidence I present you counter with conspiracy or by bringing up an unrelated matter. In order to believe stuff such as "J6 was an inside job" or "the 2020 election was fraudulent", you need to either not understand how the world works, or you need to weave a conspiracy so grand it involves almost all of the free press, the judiciary (evenly split between R and D, and Trump's cases were thrown out by both, including by Trump appointees), the DOJ (headed by Trump officials), disconnected election officials from across the country (election administration is completely decentralized), CEOs from major social media platforms, and a large portion of Trump's cabinet and political appointees. All of this was occuring while Trump was in charge of the executive branch and Republicans were in control of the Senate. Republicans were also in charge of election administration in many of the disputed states/precincts.
Man, you are in super deep. Obviously I am not making any progress on convincing you that evidence matters, and your arguments are sorely lacking in this department. I hope someday you figure it out, and I sincerely mean that. If you don't, I am sure you will still continue to be a good friend, husband, father, neighbor, etc. But as it currently stands, people are manipulating you to act in ways that are probably not consistent with your values.
That was a bad (or at least stupid) thing to say. No matter the context, why would he ever say, "whether you like it or not." A big gaffe, the kind of thing Biden constantly gets harangued for, and Trump deserves the criticism, too. As you said, he should know better and have more discipline.
Yes he was found liable for that. Sounds like maybe a million bucks or so? Nope. 148 million dollars! That's insane. If I heard he owed 10 million I'd have said it was an obvious attempt to stiffle questioning.
A lot of what you are accusing me of is true. But you are equally extreme the other way. I'm not going to go as far to say you don't give an inch, because you probably have given exactly an inch, but the speed at which you squash anything that doesn't go with what your thoughts are is pretty impressive. I guess it's possible you have read my posts and thought "I wonder if there could be any truth to that" and then thought about it more and found reasons to decide there's not. I'll tell you that's exactly how I read yours. But there are a handful of signs that make it obvious (to me) that there is at least some corruption going on. You just won't see it at all. Which is very understandable by the way because I was the exact same way before covid.
Just out of curiosity, do you think they knew Jan 6th was going to happen and let it to gain politically? Or do you believe it just legit caught everyone off guard?
I just deleted a way too long post explaining more about how I come to my conclusions, but the gist is this. First off, I'm not duped into believing Jan 6th is an inside job based on conspiracies I'm stupid enough to believe. I never believed the original story (even before I started seeing conspiracy videos) because it didn't make sense, based on the fact that one side was gaining everything and the other side was losing everything. If anyone could ever explain to me how Trump stood to gain something by inviting a mob to the capital, maybe I could reassess everything. But I've never heard one compelling reason. After that, the stupid conspiracy stories (and there are a lot of them) just confirm what I was already assuming.
It seems that if you hear something from a trusted source, you are 100% convinced it's true and will immediately dismiss anything that suggests otherwise. That's fine and all, but it relies solely on that source being correct. I take in lots of things from lots of different sources and form my own opinion on what makes sense. I get how someone like you could say that's dumb to do that, but I could never say I 100% know something's true based on something someone else told me. Especially when I don't even personally know that someone.
The people who watch Fox News or CNN all day get so brainwashed by the shit they hear. I can't imagine there's a news source out there that doesn't have their own personal bias, so at least I don't have to worry about my thoughts conforming to what someone else wants me to think.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
You had mentioned before the loss of confidence in the media, and what we see here is a good example why. Impartiality, objectivity and accuracy have been usurped by personal feelings, partisanship and agendas. Anyone with a degree of common sense and respect for the role of the press has to be concerned with the implication.
Being able to put aside personal feelings and opinions is at least tolerated to a certain degree in most professions, but it's not what the majority of the populace prefers in those that are tasked with reporting the facts.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
In regards to January 6, there are arguments to be made as to the culpability of Trump, and to what degree he was responsible for the planning and organization of the events that unfolded, and people will argue ad nauseum for decades about those details. Nevertheless, his behavior that day as the President of the United States, and the class and decorum that is expected of that position, is inexcusable and far below the standards expected of the presidency.
I'll defend his right to fair interpretation of what he says or does, or even some of his policies, but I can't defend the person.
I'll defend his right to fair interpretation of what he says or does, or even some of his policies, but I can't defend the person.
