Total posts: 5,890
-->
@oromagi
i vote "NO"
I second that. Conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense are inherently illogical as they are characterized by the most basic of logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, shifting the burden of proof, etc.). I don’t think promoting that in a debate website is a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The value of open mindedness isn’t about changing your positions. We see things the way we do for a reason, so unless we’re completely ignorant of a situation at the start it’s a very unlikely outcome. The value is in the willingness to listen to and understand the opposition. If more people were open minded that doesn’t mean we’d all agree, but we would at least be in a place where destroying the opposition because they are evil and a systemic threat to the country would not be nearly everyone’s top priority. Maybe then, improving our way of life would be what we talk about instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
All I have to say at this point is that Trump didn’t violate the law
I know that’s all you have to say, because this thread is about your opinion as an American which you cannot give because it’s not defensible, so you instead go down the legal technicality route. I guess if I insisted on holding onto such an indefensible position I’d do the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The difference between us is that you hate Trump, whereas I am ambivalent to him. I am neither predisposed to convict him in the court of public opinion nor exonerate him in that or any other forum.
I am not “predisposed” to convicting him in the court of public opinion, I have thus far with the information we have cast him a guilty verdict in said court. This thread discusses the reasons for that verdict. Your entire argument is essentially that because I have an opinion, my opinion is therefore biased and illegitimate. That’s ridiculous, but you continue to demonstrate this by focusing on me and ignoring the points I made regarding the case against him.
You have not meaningfully addressed what I said
Then you haven’t made yourself clear, unless you are referring to your attempts to psycho analyze me instead of addressing the topic of this thread, in which case I have no interest in addressing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Brandenburg v Ohio is irrelevant to this thread. Logic, reason, and facts, what we do with those facts as every day Americans, and how what we do with those facts affects our politics… that’s what this thread is about.It is not irrelevant. You and the J6 committee claim Trump incited the crowd to do the stuff they did on J6. I say there’s no criminal case…
Do you know what an OP is and how it relates to what a thread is about?
That’s not a rhetorical question, please explain.
Not saying one line of your Miranda Rights makes a case on a known criminal illegitimate. Why should this be any different.
Because the law is necessarily technical as each of these technicalities are put in place to protect the rights of individuals being arrested.
What I’m talking about is the ability to use logic, reason, and critical thinking to assess what someone’s intentions were, and to use this knowledge to assess whether that person abused the power he was given and/or should ever be entrusted with it again.
Do you understand now, or am I going to have to find 10 more ways of explaining this to you?
I’ve answered all of your arguments and you drop my arguments cause they’re “irrelevant.” That’s code for I don’t have an answer to those.
It’s not code for anything. This thread has a topic. The topic is regarding what you think as an American about what the former president did and how that affects your perception of the prospect of his ever gaining power again. In your desperation to avoid addressing this question, you have tried to turn this thread into a discussion entirely about the legality of some prospective criminal case against him. I’d be happy to discuss that topic, but until you address the actual topic this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract.
You don’t need a legal case spelled out to attack Biden, Clinton, Obama, or any other prominent left wing figure, so your partisanship here is blatant. All I’m asking is for you to be an actual person and have an actual opinion for yourself. The fact that you keep deflecting from that speaks volumes about how indefensible Trump’s actions were.
But let’s recap.Your premise allows the Governor of a state to do whatever he wants with respect to elections, even implementing stuff not allowed under the law of the state.
My premise is that the claim “the election was stolen” is not supported by pointing to changes made by election officials to accommodate the circumstances of a sudden pandemic.
That is not remotely similar to your fantasy narrative of what I’m arguing. I would appreciate if you actually started talking to me instead of the imaginary Double_R you have concocted in your mind.
Again, no one is arguing that there are no laws and/or that those laws should not be followed. That is an entirely different conversation.
Your claim focuses on election officials, I’m talking about the people of WI. In a democracy, the entire idea of elections is that they reflect the will of the people. In the absence of any argument that the vote did not reflect the will of the people, I can see why you go down this ridiculous path of pointing to the election officials.
What you clearly do not get is the absurdity of where your path leads. If it is perfectly fine to toss out votes because election officials didn’t follow the rules, then all you need to do is plant election officials in key areas so they can implement new rules and voila… you get to kneecap your opposition by throwing away their voters votes.
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands the absurdity of that. The way you deal with election officials not following the rules is to terminate or discipline the officials, not punish the people who live within their districts by taking away their voice. That’s common sense.
Moreover, the idea that they were “cheating” by doing what they did is also nonsense. Setting aside the obvious reasonableness of accommodating voters by making it easer to vote remotely in the middle of a pandemic, let’s remember that mail in votes at that time historically benefited republicans. It was only after Trump politicized the virus, and then politicized mail in ballots themselves in response to the changes made by those election officials that mail in ballots became a “democratic” thing. So your claim fails on every level.
You have yet to explain what other reasonable explanation exists for why Ray Epps has not been charged for incitement besides he’s a fed.
Because that’s not my responsibility. Again, you are the one claiming he is a federal agent, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim. This is really basic stuff.
Insinuating that he is a federal agent because we have no better explanation is the literal definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Look it up. Or better yet, apply basic logic. What you’re actually arguing is “I can’t explain why he wasn’t charged, therefore I can explain why he wasn’t charged”. That’s a clear logical contradiction.
So for the last time, it is not my nor the governments responsibility to refute your conspiracy theories. Present a valid piece of evidence and then we’ll have something to discuss.
You have yet to address why Donald Trump should have been in the bureaucratic process, even after he delegated the authority to the SecDef Chris Miller for the purpose that it wouldnt take long for help to get there.
First of all, you again ignore the fact that Trump authorized him to do whatever was necessary to help the protesters, not to defend the US Capitol. Not that I would ever expect you to let facts get in the way of your narrative.
More importantly, the reason he should have been involved is because he’s the fucking President.
“The president of the United States is the commander-in-chief for the District of Columbia National Guard. Command is exercised through the secretary of defense and the commanding general, Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), District of Columbia National Guard… The mayor of the District of Columbia, the United States marshal for the District of Columbia, or the National Capital Service director may request the commander-in-chief to aid them in suppressing insurrection and enforcement of the law; however, there is no chain of authority from the District of Columbia to the D.C. National Guard.[3]
The fact that you continue to pretend Trump had no responsibility to get involved in protecting the country he swore an oath to protect is truly amazing and a case study in cognitive dissonance.
You have yet to address why Capitol police did not do anything about security even after receiving intelligence that something bad could happen.
Because that’s not what this thread is about. I asked a very specific question in the OP which you continue to pretend I didn’t ask.
If you are insinuating that there was a conspiracy to purposefully under-resource security at the Capitol as to leave the Capitol vulnerable so that Trump supporters could over run it all so that the democrats could finally have an excuse to impeach Trump, whom they already defeated in the election… then provide evidence for your claim.
If not, then all this question is asking is why someone failed in their job responsibilities to provide adequate security. That is a question worth asking and we should all know, but that is absurdly insignificant compared to what Trump is alleged to have done and an entirely different conversation. Address the actual topic of this thread and I would be happy to address your explanation when you come up with one yourself.
You have yet to address how the lack of cross examination by real GOP members is a good thing in a country founded on due process and cross-examination.
Due process has nothing to do with a congressional hearing. You call me ignorant on the law but continue to post nonsense like this.
The GOP members on the panel are as real as any republicans who have ever served in congress. The fact that they are not licking Trump’s balls like Jim Jordan doesn’t change that.
And like I already explained, they had a chance to put “real” republicans in the panel. They chose not to and they did that because they knew partisans like yourself would carry their water and pretend that their choice not to participate on any level means we all get to ignore the fact that Trump’s own aids are telling the country under oath that this man did everything the committee has been telling us he did. That’s ridiculous.
Also, again, those defending Trump are free to testify at any point. None of them will. That should make you think, but it won’t.
You have yet to explain why incitement should not be governed under the Brandenburg v Ohio doctrine rather than misleading the public about what constitutes “incitement.”
Because that’s not the topic of this thread. Whether the committee has put together all of the elements needed to establish the legal definition of incitement and brought a case sufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is a completely different thing from you looking at the situation as a human being and using your own common sense to determine whether Trump did in fact incite people to attack the US Capitol.
To the later point, the people attacking the Capitol literally told us they were doing so in real time. The J6 committee even brought a witness to the stand saying the same thing. Ignore it all you want, it still happened.
You have yet to explain why the committee purposely left out Trump saying “peacefully” in his speech to supporters on J6.
I did explain that, spent a whole chunk of a long post on it. Not my fault you don’t read and absorb.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I’ve done keto a number of times, lose 15-30 pounds each time. The biggest lesson I’ve learned to making it work are avacados. You need a certain percentage of fat in your diet to make it work, at least one avocado a day will help tremendously to get the fat you need without overdoing it on the protein.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Look up the May 29th, 2020 riots in front of the White House. In the blocks before the White House, violent rioters, looted and burned everything in sight and headed for the White House gates. The only thing that made this different from January 6th is that unlike Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump was prepared and had massive amounts of security standing by.
What made this different is that the rioters were not there because president of the United States told them to be.
Civil disobedience is a threat that needs to be dealt with, but is a natural thing every government in the world has to deal with from time to time.
The person who was entrusted to lead the country and protect it - using the power of his office to stir up such disobedience in an attempt to retain power against the will of the people is a completely different thing.
Amazing how you cannot tell the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
This situation is governed by the rules set forth in Brandenburg v Ohio
No, it’s not. I am thoroughly convinced you are just trolling at this point, there is no way you don’t understand this by now.
I’ve pointed out repeatedly what this is about. Let’s go back to the OP:
“Curious to know what everyone's thoughts are. I'm also curious to know what Trump supporters think about the idea that he should be president again despite the evidence clearly showing his violation of his oath of office.”
This isn’t a criminal trial nor is this a discussion regarding the legality of some future criminal case. It is about how you, as a Trump supporter, continue to justify your support for this man despite everything he has done. And it’s also about the mental gymnastics you and others continue to engage in to avoid discussing the topic.
Brandenburg v Ohio is irrelevant to this thread. Logic, reason, and facts, what we do with those facts as every day Americans, and how what we do with those facts affects our politics… that’s what this thread is about.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Once again, you example has zero relevance because Court is clear that the incitement has to be direct, which is definitely not the case here because Trump said to be peaceful
The example is entirely relevant because the example doesn’t address legality, it addresses common sense. The example demonstrates that there are situations where you actually have to do the work of connecting the dots yourself. In the example I provided, no one element alone made my intentions clear, but when you add them up my mindset became clear. That’s how it works, sometimes you actually have to think.
And when you start to think, you realize how absurd it is to dismiss the entire case because Trump planted one exculpatory line in his speech. You realize that this months long effort to get to this point adds up to a very clear picture, his one-liner included. You realize that Trump has been doing this his entire life, and everyone around him knew it. Everyone at that rally knew it. Everyone in congress knew it. So the question I’m asking is; why don’t you know it? What is it that makes you so blatantly partisan that you cannot see something so simple which you would see in any other instance?
Trump lost WI because more legal WI voters decided that they wanted Biden instead. Whether they cast their ballots through the mail, in a drop box, or in person is irrelevant to that fact.That’s your fascistic tendencies speaking. If tomorrow the Governor of Wisconsin says I’m going to allow illegals to vote, under your premise you’d be okay with that.
Do yourself a favor, read the above, then note how your response is completely disconnected from what I actually said.
Nowhere in this statement or anywhere in this thread have I in any way endorsed the idea of illegals being able to cast a ballot. You made that up whole cloth.
In my statement I clearly and explicitly talk about legal voters. In a democracy, that’s the point. Not whether they submit their ballots through their own mail boxes, a drop box, or a polling station. Yes there are rules and those rules need to be followed, but you’re claiming an election was stolen. That is a completely different type of claim and conversion.
To support claiming the election was stolen, you need to show that the people (because that is what a democracy is actually about) who were supposed to be choosing their candidate, did not actually do that. Do you have evidence that they didn’t? Yes or no?
And let’s spare a thought for how absurd it is that a man using Donald Trump’s face as his avatar is lecturing someone else about fascism. Wow.
That’s a conclusion a reasonable person could come to if there’s a concerted effort by Democratic executives in key states to change the law unconstitutional to benefit themselves and their party
So to be clear, changing the rules on how people are allowed to vote with the intention of improving one party’s chances over another is tantamount to stealing an election. Is that correct?
That’s Congress’s job. Ted Cruz asked the FBI and they refused to answer. I’m all for subpoenaing the FBI to find this out. Are you?What’s your explanation for why Ray Epps still hasn’t been charged? I only see one reasonable reason.
Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
It’s not congress’s job to refute your conspiracy theories. You’re the one making the claim that Ray Epps is a federal plant, therefore it is your job to provide evidence for your claims.
This is logic 101 and is how every conspiracy theory works. 9/11 truthers still argue that flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon. Their evidence? The fact that the pentagon won’t release all of the tapes. Same exact logic.
Tomorrow if the Governor says I’m only going to allow blacks to vote, you’d be okay with that. The fact you think checks and balances are a red herring just shows your utter disrespect of the Constitution
Never said anything remotely resembling this. You are having a full blown discussion with your imaginary foe.
I have a clear explanation of why checks and balances within the Constitution don’t allow Trump unilateral power in the District of Columbia. Then I asked you have checks and balances have prevented Joe Biden from preventing the increase of gas prices? Something which you clearly ignore because it doesn’t suit your purpose. You’ve dropped like 50 arguments by now
I can’t respond to every single nonsense sentence you post, so I have to pick and choose otherwise is be here all day. The arguments I drop are those that are irrelevant to this thread. I’m sorry that I won’t go down your little rabbit hole distractions. Stick to the topic and that won’t be an issue.
The discussion here isn’t about constitutional checks and balances, it’s about the mental gymnastics needed to blame Biden for global gas prices while absolving Trump of his own lack of involvement in his own federal government’s response to the US Capitol being under attack to the point where Congress had to evacuate. If Joe Biden did that you would be all over it for months and you know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The issue raised was whether your use of the most inflammatory language you possibly could come up with, in fact, fairly described what happened.
The word mob is the literal definition of what it’s called. That’s not the most inflammatory language I could find, it’s English 101.
Kevin McCarthy called them a mob on the house floor in January 6th. Is he a biased advocate for the left? Or do your rules only apply to me?
If I were using the most inflammatory language I could find I would call them insurrectionists, yet I’ve never used that term on this site to describe them or what happened at the Capitol. Unlike most of the people here I’m actually trying to discuss reality in real, reasonable terms. Just need someone else to do it with.
And even if I fit whatever your visual is off some left wing anti Trump advocate, who the hell cares? The validity of my arguments have nothing to do with my intentions. Anyone who cares about the reality of the situation would focus on what I have to say instead of finding excuses to dismiss it.
If at 2:24, as you claim, a crisis had manifested to such an extent that congressional evacuation was required, would ten minutes later cops be calmly waiving people through the door as if nothing was the matter? I think not.
And yet this is exactly what happened according to all of the available video footage, for which there is an abundance.
So what do we do with this information? Please explain how you put it together.
And BTW, the timeline I described are easily accessible objectively verifiable facts that have been at the center of this entire conversation for two years now. The fact that you are calling this my claim, or my timeline demonstrates that you have made no effort to understand what happened, which makes this entire discussion all the more remarkable.
Being invited or compelled under duress (read: subpoenaed) to testify is not even remotely close to the same thing as having an opportunity to cross examine a witness who is testifying. It is clear these basic procedural matters are something you're not familiar with, yet you had the audacity to respond with a declaration of "Bullshit!"
I’ve been on a witness stand a few times before jackass, I know what cross examination is.
Instead of engaging in the technical BS you and your buddies here love to engage in as a distraction from the actual topic, I was addressing the clear insinuation of your comment which is that only one side of the story is being told. This is BS for a number of reasons I already mentioned which you unsurprisingly ignored in your “gotcha” rant.
Whether anyone got to cross examine them is irrelevant to the fact that they have testified and made their story clear under oath. You can either deal with it or ignore it. Clearly, you chose the latter.
I've got news for you: It turns out that you have a right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, without regard to whether you're before a committee or a jury.
Once again, the presumption of innocence applies to a jury, judge, or anyone in a position to decide one’s fate in a legal setting. That is not what the committee is.
It sure as hell does not - because it logically can not - apply to those who are investigating you. Anyone who knows anything about investigations knows that in order to open an investigation you need a predicate, which is a reason to believe the person might be guilty of a crime. That nullifies as incompatible the idea of presuming innocence for the committee.
The presumption of innocence also does not mean ignoring the facts and evidence in front of your face. Much of what Trump did he did publicly. The idea that those investigating his actions were at the start supposed to wipe their mind clear of everything they knew in order to conduct a legitimate investigation is beyond stupid.
The case is there. The evidence is there. You’ve presumed innocence. Congratulations. Now look at the evidence and reach a conclusion. When you’re ready to discuss that conclusion I’ll be here.
Created:
Posted in:
So where’s the quote where Trump said storm the Capitol and kill Pence. I’ll wait. Because according to the Court, that’s what he needs to do.
This statement pretty much sums it all up.
A post or so ago I used the money laundering example. The point was to illustrate that the conclusion takes multiple steps to get to, the fact that you cannot get there in one fell swoop does not negate the validity of that conclusion. This is basic common sense.
Trump supporters will never accept anything negative about him unless it’s spelled out in the clearest of terms possible all in one sound bite. Unless he stands up and says “I want you to fraudulently steal the election for me” you guys will always pretend his mindset was unclear. It’s beyond pathetic.
And no, this is not a requirement of the court. The requirement is that the jurors use their common sense in the same way that they would in any other situation. If I smiled at your wife, then bought her a drink, then invited her to my place… you wouldn’t need for me to spell out my intentions to know damn well what they were. But when it comes to Trump suddenly it’s impossible to know. That’s ridiculous.
It really says a lot though that you don’t care about the legal nuances.
When we are arguing in a thread about whether Trump should be prosecuted, I will care about and discuss the legal nuances. This is not a thread about Trump’s legal exposure. It’s a thread about what the committee has reveals to the American people and how you as a Trump supporter deals with those facts.
But it seems I already have the answer. Being that you have not once in this thread attempted to engage in the evidence presented against him and how that impacts your attitude towards him as a political leader and instead gone down the rabbit hole of attacking the committee, attacking democrats, and finding legal grounds to dismiss all of it as if this were a criminal trial, it’s clear that the way you deal with these facts is to ignore them.
The fact here is they were illegal and the executives did them anyways in violation of the law. Period. Full stop.
Which is irrelevant to this conversation. The executives are not the ones who decided Joe Biden would get WI’s electoral votes, that decision was made by the people of WI. That’s what this conversation is actually about.
Again, any reasonable interpretation of the phrase “the election was stolen” points to the idea that the candidate the people chose did not come away as the victor. That’s not what happened here, which is why you need to go down this hole of “but the drop boxes”.
Trump lost WI because more legal WI voters decided that they wanted Biden instead. Whether they cast their ballots through the mail, in a drop box, or in person is irrelevant to that fact. I’m sorry you cannot handle that and so you need to find a technicality to disqualify legal WI voters from consideration, but the whole point of elections is for the results to match the will of the people. Until you can argue that that this not happen here the rest of your points are nonsense red herrings.
Ray Epps was a fed who incited the crowd and cause people to break into the Capitol.
Prove:
1. That Ray Epps was working for out with the federal government on January 6th
2. That anyone attacked the US Capitol who would not have if Ray Epps was not present.
You resort to false equivalency fallacies to somehow prove I’m being partisan, when it’s your sides advocacy of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All that…
My sides advocacy? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
In your attempt to swat away the allegation you end up proving it by projecting.
I don’t give a rats ass about sides, I’m arguing what I believe because I find it to be true. My side are those who care about reality, which is why I’m challenging folks who are defending Trump here to make the counter argument, yet all you have is red herrings. That only affirms the point I started off with; his actions are indefensible. If they were defendable, people like you would be able to. But here we are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
More whataboutisms. Why am I not surprised?Cause Nov is going to be a much more fun and happier month than January?
More like, because you don't have an actual argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No where did Trump tell people to do something illegal.
That's a really nice family you got there, would be a shame if something were to happen to them.
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
That's literally what these hearings are about.
I can I think the election was stolen. It’s an opinion, which in this case is backed by some fact.
And I can tell you the moon is made of cheese, which is my opinion and based on some fact. Turns out that whenever you are free to make up definitions you get to say whatever you want.
Rewriting the rules on voting in order to account for the conditions created by a pandemic is not only not "stealing an election", it's one of three most basic reasonabilities a government/legislature has. The fact that you disagree with those rules does not change that.
No one changed to rules to say that black people get to vote twice, or that illegals get to vote. All they did was make voting more convenient for people who feared COVID and to help prevent public spread. To call that "stealing an election" is ridiculous. If the drop boxes weren't there those voters would have just voted elsewhere. And if your argument is that many of them wouldn't have voted at all then you're literally arguing that the election was stolen because republicans were not allowed to stop enough democratic voters from voting. That's beyond absurd.
If you don’t know the judicial process...
We're not talking about the judicial process. This is a Congressional hearing. The topic in this thread is about what you, as a Trump supporter, think about the actual evidence of the case. You know, the thing you have completely avoided discussing?
I don't care about your legal ducks and dodges, do you have an actual opinion on the reasonableness of the committee's findings based on the evidence they have presented?
Plain stupid when the FBI refuses to say whether Ray Epps was a federal informer who purposefully incited people to enter the Capitol.
The Pentagon refuses to release the footage of flight 77. Let's all march to demand they tell us what they're hiding.
Anyone can insinuate conspiracy garbage behind the veil of just asking questions. Make a claim and support your claim, then I will be happy to address.
You’re acting like Trump is a fascist dictator who isn’t beholden to checks and balances that are prescribed under the Constitution. Which is it lol
When the US president is a democrat they're responsible for literally everything, including globally high gas prices and another country on the other side of the world invading it's neighbor. But when they're a republican they're not even responsible for the federal government's response to the US Capitol being overrun by mob rioters.
Your partisan hackery is showing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you familiar with money laundering? That's when one uses a business transaction to hide the true nature of a payment.Like when Biden sells 1 million barrels of tax payed SR oil to China via a company his son works in? Also Ukraine?the action of provoking unlawful behaviorLike peacefully intimidating a judge at his house? Why isn't Biden in jail for this?the person running the federal governmentYou can't be serious.The federal government is way too bloated for any one man to run. Time to burn some of it off like they do to prevent forest fires.
More whataboutisms. Why am I not surprised?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact that we know who was responsible before the investigation took place does nothing to discredit the investigation.Confirmation bias plus everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even the orangeman.
This is a congressional hearing, not a criminal trial. Innocent until proven guilty are instructions for the jury. It's not reasonable in any sense to apply this to the investigators, if they don't presume anything they have nothing to investigate.
Probably is what happens when prosecutors presume people are innocent or guilty based on skin color or some other meaningless bias.
Presuming one's guilt based on skin color and presuming one's guilt based on the fact that the crime was mostly committed in real time in front of the entire world are two completely different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Giving a speech in DC is a threat? Give me a break. You can blame Trump all you want lol, but he’s not responsible for the actions of the lunatics who were incited by people who still haven’t been charged and police who let the people in (something you have yet to address in responses to me and Coal).
Whether a speech is a threat depends on what is said in the speech. You understand this even though you pretend you don't. What also matters just as much is the context in which that speech was given. It never ceases to amaze me how Trump defenders ignore that at all costs.
Once again, the speech he gave was the culmination of a months long effort to convince the public of his complete bullshit lie that the election was stolen, then rile them up and invite them all to the Capitol to set them loose. What were talking about is the entire picture, not any one action. I've made this point repeatedly in this thread, why has that not sunk in? What is so difficult about this?
Are you familiar with money laundering? That's when one uses a business transaction to hide the true nature of a payment. Proving the crime requires multiple elements committed at multiple points. It's only when you put all of the elements together that you establish a crime. That's what this is. You are not dense enough to not understand this concept, you either just don't want to get it or you do and are pretending you don't.
Another example of you pretending not to understand basic concepts you no doubt understand is your claim that he cannot he held responsible for the actions of others. It's a literal legal term and people get prosecuted for it all the time;
Incitement
the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.
"this amounted to an incitement to commit murder"
- Google
And as far as your silly little claim regarding federal plants rallying people up, I haven't addressed that because it's just plain stupid. Provide evidence and state what you're claiming clearly and I will happily address.
You’re acting like Trump is some god who can do whatever he wants, which is absurd
Wow.
I'm acting like Trump is the President, as in the person running the federal government. As in the person responsible for protecting the nation.
You can't be serious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So in your eyes, are the J6 hearings to get Trump or is it to help develop plans to defend the capitol in the future? Because outside of partisan theatrics, it seems they are objectively doing neither.
The committee has always been focused on holding those responsible for this attack accountable. And Trump was the obvious target from the start, that's why the republican leaders in both chambers stood on the floor and have a speech about Trump's culpability that evening. It's also why everyone in Trump's orbit, including all 3 prime time Fox News hosts pleaded with Mark Meadows to tell Trump to put a stop to it.
The fact that we know who was responsible before the investigation took place does nothing to discredit the investigation. If that we're the case we'd have quite a few more murderers on the streets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Characterizing the individuals who participated in the events of January 6th as a "mob" or "rioters" is inherently biased advocacy.
Please explain how they failed to meet the literal definition of a mob, or explain how calling something what it means by definition amounts to "biased advocacy"
Mob: a large and disorderly crowd of people especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action
I'll wait.
Characterizing those individuals' actions as "smashing windows and climbing in" or "ploughing through police barricades surrounding the capitol" is not inconsistent with what I said above.
You're claim was that there was no evidence a mob attacked the Capitol. Please explain how a large crowd of people bent on riotus or destructive action beating their way through police officers (140 of them were injured) to break into the US Capitol many of which ended up vandalizing the place and did so while chanting that they were there to hang the Vice President... Does not qualify as an attack.
I'll wait for that one too.
The footage I linked from January 6th clearly indicates that after 2:34 PM, police let the protesters in through the upper west terrace doors. Nothing in that video suggests that police were "overwhelmed" or "overran."...Based on your timeline, these people should have been stampeding across police barricades or have already done so on their way to overwhelming the police in something like a storming of the bastille. And is that what you see, here?
First of all, it appears you didn't read the timeline. Congress was evacuated from the Capitol at 2:24pm, by that point the barricades had been breached for almost an hour and the Capitol building itself for almost 30 minutes.
There is nothing inconsistent about the narrative and your video. By this point Capitol police had lost all control, the idea that we have to see the same officers getting beaten up before opening the doors is absurd. If control had been lost then except for some instances (like rioters attempting to gain access to the bunkers where congress took shelter) any force at that point would have been nothing but provocation which would have ended up with more people hurt or killed. This is why we see in some of these videos trespassers being told by Capitol police their not supposed to be there without trying to arrest or detail them.
This is common sense.
These witnesses are making accusations against people who have no opportunity at all to cross examine them.
Bullshit. Every individual who had involvement in the events the committee is investigating has been invited to testify, many of them subpoenaed. It turns out the only individuals willing to testify under oath are the ones whose story is unfavorable towards the nonsense you are peddling. At some point you should be asking why that is, but you won't.
Why was that crowd of people riled up by instigators who were almost certainly plants by federal law enforcement?
So now we've gone full tin foil hat. Ok. Maybe Info Wars can answer your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If they wanted violence then most wouldn’t have walked around taking pictures. An even bigger majority didn’t even go in. If riling up a crowd to think the election was stolen (it was) counts as an insurrection, then god help us.
None of these points are relavant to the issue. There is a term called stochastic terrorism, which is where one makes vague notions of something bad that should happen, and then given the odds of someone listening to them will carry it out, it happens. This is danger that while the speaker is in fact responsible for, cannot be charged because they get to claim they didn't really mean it or that they weren't the one who actually did it.
Everytime we talk about J6 right wingers love to ignore the actual concept here and go with the stupid defense that Trump didn't tell them to go in. Everyone knew in real time today Trump's actions were a threat, and everyone knew in real time that he was responsible. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Kevin McCarthy all said so the day it happened.
But then something else happened... In the days and weeks later they realized Trump sycophants like yourself didn't give a shit and the political consequences of sticking to what they knew to be the case was greater than pretending Trump did nothing wrong. So here we are where the stupid arguments like "well Trump did say X" or "well some people didn't go in" actually make sense and address the issue here. They don't.
Chris Miller testified that he didn’t need Trump’s approval because Trump had given him the authority beforehand to do what was necessary
You left out what Trump actually told him.
"Fill it and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights," Miller said Trump told him on January 3.
It's very telling that this is the best defense you can come up with for why Trump did absolutely nothing while the US Capitol was being attacked by his own supporters in his name as the rest of the country watched on in real time wondering where the president was.
That’s why they need to be prepared BEFORE, so if something does happen then they’re ready for it.
Trump did nothing as the attacks were happening, and yet your concern is about why the Capitol was not better prepared in the days beforehand.
Imagine if a mass shooting breaks out and the police officers on duty sat in their office for the first 20 minutes of it, then later people pretend we shouldn't be focused on the officers but rather we should be focused on why the metal detectors were down. That's the level of absurdity to this excuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
As to the claim that a "mob attacked the Capitol," there is no evidence for that either. There's video of a protest taking place in proximity to the Capitol, police channeling that protest towards the Capitol Building and police opening the doors for protesters to welcome them in.
This is one of the most absurdly false claims I have seen on this site, and that is saying something.
There are hours upon hours upon hours of video footage showing the mob rioters plowing through the police barricades surrounding the Capitol, smashing windows and climbing in, breaking down doors, and beating up Capitol police officers as they did all of this. This isn’t a debatable point, the evidence is available to anyone with an internet connection. If you have not seen it yet the only reason that would be is because you’ve decided you are not interested in it.
The New York Times and others have literally put together a minute by minute breakdown of every piece of what happened that day, from the first barricades being breached to the first windows being smashed to the chambers being breached after congress evacuated. There is no excuse for claiming we don’t have evidence of what happened, we have video footage of the entire thing.
And for those individuals who still choose to ignore the footage, I’m just going to leave this here so you can keep on ignoring it.
This is literally like me claiming the Super Bowl didn’t happen.
I understand the impulse to ignore all of this evidence which objectively proves that this happened because you saw a handful of videos of police officers letting rioters in. To that I make two points; first is that even if those videos are taken to their extreme and accepted as fact, that still does not cancel out the fact that the mob rioters broke their way into the Capitol.
But more importantly, Capitol police already explained this; They were outnumbered. They had lost all control so in some instances the officers decided the better strategy was to try and contain the damage by politely letting rioters into the building as opposed to fighting then off and risk more personal injuries as well as property damage. That is a very simple and practical explanation, and one of the journalists who recorded one of these viral videos even explained that the right wing fantasy narrative of his video is not what happened.
As to the claim that Trump somehow wanted any of that, the press release, tweets and video evidence plainly indicate otherwise. He literally told that lot to stand down and go home.
The police barricades were breached by the mob at 1:30pm, right at about 2pm is when the first windows were smashed and the rioters began to flood the Capitol building. By 2:24pm congress was forced to evacuate both chambers.
Trump put out his video telling the mob to leave the Capitol at 4:17pm, almost two hours after congress was evacuated. Two. Hours.
There is no excuse for this, so to put this out there as a defense is insultingly stupid. I like most of the country and much of the world watched this unfold live. We all knew what was happening. Everyone in the country knew what was happening. Where was the president for two hours as the Capitol was attacked in his name?
Trump put out that video because he had no choice. Literally everyone in his White House along with all of his advisors on Fox News we’re pleading with him to put a stop to it. He didn’t put out that message because he wanted to, he put it out for PR. No rational person could argue otherwise.
And not only do you pretend that this excuse suffices despite how long the entire country was on standstill as we watched this whole thing play out, but you ignore that when he finally told the crowd to go home couldn’t resist but to tell them “we love you, you’re very special”.
I cannot believe I have to explain this.
And as far as whether he wanted any of it… as if it were not already blatantly obvious, yes he did says his own aids. Have you not watched any of the hearings? No, of course you haven’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So Pelosi can put Adam Schiff, the definition of a partisan hack on the committee, but it’s somehow partisan for McCarthy to put Jim Jordan and Jim Banks on the committee? Give me a brea
Let's make this real easy...
Kevin McCarthy, the same guy who stood up and said on the house for on January 6th that Trump was responsible for the attack on the US Capitol, weeks later flew down to Mar-A-Lago to see Trump and then post a picture of the two of them together in an obviously apparent attempt to show the world they stand together.
Tell me with a straight face that this man had a genuine interest in investigating January 6th. I'll wait.
You mean the statement where he said peacefully and patriotically protest at the rally before?
This is such a stupid retort. If you actually believe this I pray for you that you never get caught up dealing with a mob boss. When they tell you "eh, nice family you have there, would be shame if something were to happen to them" you would be dumb enough to think he was expressing genuine concern for the safety of your family.
This is in law what's referred to as a false exculpatory. Something one says so that when they are charged for their actions they point back and say "no, look at what I said". It's like when a prostetute tells you they are charging you for their time.
Trump's effort to rile up this crowd was months in the making and his own aids have testified to it. Everyone in that crowd knew he wanted violence, his own aids testified to that too. This is why you are such an obvious partisan hack, you're just not stupid enough to believe this.
Trump just told a mob of angry supporters that their country had been stolen from them and they have to take it back by showing strength because it will never happen with weakness, and you seriously think the take away for that crowd was that they were supposed to make their voices heard peacefully?
No, you can't possibly seriously think this.
This never would’ve happened if Pelosi accepted the request for the additional troops. Intelligence clearly knew this was going to happen
Why did they need extra troops in the first place? Have you ever bothered to ask yourself that question? January 6th congress and goes every election, it is hardly even covered. What was different this year?
What did you want him to do? Send the National Guard that Nancy Pelosi rejected earlier because of optics lol?
First off, let's just point out that you are actually comparing Nancy Pelosi's decision to not request additional troops in the days and weeks prior to J6 to Trump's decision to not request additional troops as the attacks were unfolding. That's absurd, and I think you know that.
But to your question, YES, Trump was supposed to deploy the national guard. The DC national guard reports to the president, and yet on J6 it was Mike Pence who gave the orders for them to be deployed because Trump was MIA. Why does this not concern you?
Created:
-->
@Kritikal
This claim seems illogical because if gender is a social construct, it follows that the only valid genders are those which have been socially constructed.
This isn't about logical validity, it's about respecting fellow human beings as human beings and allowing them to live a dignified life.
To that end, it's not for society to tell them what genders they get to choose from, it's about them telling us about their struggles and how they identify as a result. For the rest of us, our only part is deciding whether to respect it or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think it’s reasonable to find out why Pelosi didn’t want any GOP reps to question their witnesses considering she singlehandedly rejected the GOP bench put forth by McCarthy (unprecedented).
We know why she rejected two of McCarthy's picks; because they are unquestionable partisan hacks who had no interest in investigating January 6th and one of them is a literal material witness to the events being investigated. They were poison pills McCarthy threw in there on purpose just so he could have an excuse to not participate, and he thought this would be good best option because he knew partisan hacks liked yourself would carry his water. I mean seriously, the guy flew down to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the ring. You can't be serious to claim he had any interest in this.
I also want to know what she knew about the clear intelligence that this was coming, and if she did know why she rejected the National Guard.
Funny how you don't share that same interest to know what Trump knew about it and what he did in response, especially considering that what they did was done in his name.
Also funny that you care to know what Pelosi did about it in the days prior, but no interest to know what Trump was doing about it as it was happening.
You're not a serious person to talk to about this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Really not concerned about polls and ratings, I would love to know your thoughts on the actual case being presented. Like the fact that Trump wanted the mob that attacked the Capitol to be armed and wanted to lead them himself, both of which were stopped only because people in his own government stood up to him and told him no.
I get that not every right winger here is a Trump supporter and most claim they only voted for him cause they didn't like the alternatives, but none of that is relavant to this. How is this example *alone* not automatically disqualifying to the prospect of this man ever showing his face in political life again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Never ceases to amaze me how right wingers cannot tell the difference between subpoeanaing witnesses to a plot to overthrow US Democracy, and subpoeanaing someone for not being sufficiently loyal to the home team.Cause Democrats thought the tank would make Dukakis look good, just like Trumpy's spray-on-tan aides were supposed to make Pelosi look good. Hilariously wrong as it turned out.Very bad political optics.
We're not talking about political optics. We're talking about upholding the rule of law in our democracy. You know, the thing people like you love to pretend you care about while demonstrating clearly that you don't.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Though Biden is infinitely smarter and wiser than Trump,Debatable
It's really not. No one can claim with a straight face that Biden thinks clean coal means you take coal out and scrub it with a brush. The man may be confused at times but those are temporary instances, Trump's state is permanent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Dems still haven’t learned the good ol saying: what goes around comes around
When a democratic president tries to use the power of his office to throw out the results of an election to maintain power, republicans are free to use every resource available to investigate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Gonna be fun seeing Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and co subpoenaing Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger lol
Never ceases to amaze me how right wingers cannot tell the difference between subpoeanaing witnesses to a plot to overthrow US Democracy, and subpoeanaing someone for not being sufficiently loyal to the home team.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
J6 theatre has to be the funniest political suicide I have seen since the Dukakis ad of him riding in a tank
Really not sure what's funny about Trump's own aids testifying under oath about how he wanted the mob that attacked the US capitol to be armed. Perhaps you can enlighten us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
There exists no rights in any of the constitution that does not have exceptions.
Great. So since reasonable exceptions are constitutionally valid, what do you guys think of an assault weapons ban?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I never said I wanted to abolish background checks
I didn't accuse you of that. Read my post again.
I was pointing out how the 2A advocate argument that owning guns are a constitutional right goes out the window the moment you accept that we should background check someone to make sure they meet the government's qualifications before allowing them the privilege of owning a gun.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think the problem is that Joe Biden is too basic as a president. He does everything a president is essentially expected to do without bringing anything special that could bind the US populace together. That in today's standards should be expected for a US president so really in fact Biden is being subpar as a president.
Mostly agree. Biden is terrible at selling himself to the public, it's almost like he doesn't think that part matters. And I think he is trying to hard to appeal to the far left, that's just not what got him elected.
I will say though, the left is increasingly difficult to appease. They actually care about issues, so he's is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If he cancels all student loan debt he loses the moderates. If he fails to do so he loses the base. If he goes all out on climate changed he gets blamed for gas prices. If he doesn't he loses the environmental advocates.
The right doesn't have this problem. While they care about their issues, all they really want is to destroy the evil libs. So fight back against them and the right will be with you no matter what.
Created:
-->
@coal
Americans hate deranged jackass Joe Biden, more than they ever hated Trump
Trump was/is definitely more hated than Biden. The only people who hate Biden are people who consume way too much right wing propaganda. The number of people who do not like Biden is higher because democratic voters actually have standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Sounds like you’re pro-second amendment. I’ll take it
I never stated my position, I only criticized yours. Not surprising that you pretended I did the former in order to not have to address the latter...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I expect you don't see the point in defending Democracy from partisan hacks.
That's the whole point of the J6 committee
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You're talking about actually causing someone to be in fear that you might cause them some kind of physical pain.
I am suddenly reminded of the "I feared for my life" excuse we have heard over and over again from police officers who killed unarmed suspects.
Managing ones fear is a personal responsibility, it is not (or at least should not be) the business of the state to sheild individuals from unreasonable fear. And even if it were, that only works against your argument because I fear for my safety every time I find myself within proximity of someone carrying a tool that can end my life at any moment of their choosing. Do I not have the right to be free from that? Or does fear only work one way?
simply by carrying a firearm, you are not placing someone else at "elevated risk,"
This is patently false.
I am reminded of a concept in physics called potential energy. Think of laying a bowling ball on your foot. The PE is almost nonexistent. Pick that bowling ball up to your waste, there's now enough PE to possibly break a bone or two.
The same concept applies to one carrying a gun. Put ten unarmed people in a room. The amount of "energy" in the room leave almost no possibility for anyone to end up dead, and for it to happens would take a huge effort.
Now arm one of them. Suddenly the potential exists for multiple people to end up dead with almost no effort.
So no, the risk is objectively elevated. If no one we're armed it would take an intentional and severe effort to kill or seriously injure someone, in scenario two it could literally happen by accident.
So let me give you this set of practical scenarios to think over.
Sunsetting I notice about right wing arguments on gun safety, they always include drug dealers, rapists, or gang bangers. I find this quite interesting especially since most live in rural America where most of them have never even seen one of these. It speaks to the simplemindedness of these arguments, everything is black and white. Everything is "gods guys" vs "bad guys", and we need to guns to protect us from the bad guys.
The world is not this simple, and your examples are are as well overly simplistic and exclusive. What about the possibility that the woman instead of hitting the side of a condo fires a bullet into someone's living room killing a child? What about instead of scaring away the attackers causes them to be even more aggressive and kill her in "self defense"?
There are no good scenarios here, but the proliferation of guns only increases the risk that someone is killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Sure. I guess you don’t know how background checks work too, considering you can’t do one on someone who doesn’t exist in the system lol.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Searching someone's background so you can tell them whether they are allowed to buy a gun sounds like an infringement to me.
So does telling someone they cannot buy a gun because they went to prison.
So does telling someone they can't buy a gun because of a few social media posts.
Sounds like you're anti second amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you agree with the right AT ALL?
In some cases I suppose. I am not thinking of any at the moment because I don't run my beliefs through a left/right litmus test so if you're curious to know which ones feel free to ask questions and actually try to understand.
Am I just taking the positions I'm told?I think so and you don’t realize it.
Then how does this work? What belief system do I need to have in order to think for myself? Tell me so I can adjust my positions to whatever you say they need to be.
This is the right wing position. The left wing position is to try Kavenough as a rapist.
It's a cartoonish portrayal of the left wing position from someone who clearly does not give a rats ass about understanding the left.
Do you ever think that in your haste to distance yourself from partisanship you are actually the one just taking positions based on labels? That's what it looks like to me, I really wish you would start thinking for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Might have a Jan 6 hearing Nov 2022 to fire that cop. That would be a start.
Why do you bother? You can't possibly think you're making points here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Don't you have to have cross examinations of witnesses and opposing counter arguments for it to be called a hearing.
2a: opportunity to be heard, to present one's side of a case, or to be generally known or appreciated
b(1): a listening to arguments
(2): a preliminary examination in criminal procedure
c: a session (as of a legislative committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
You said he shouldn’t have gone out larping all whilst ignoring the fact that he was literally assaulted by a gang of weapon wielding thugs. I argue that this is the same as me saying she shouldn't have gone out larping when confronted with a rape victim.
I don't consider going outside looking sexy to be the same thing as heading into the middle of a riot to stand against the rioters strapped with an AR15.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So we need to protect the Capitol from the DC police force. Uh, yeah, sure, ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Nice of you to discount the population of an entire state.
Facts are facts. Care to discuss any of those?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
4 more months, and we can have someone responsible and accountable for making sure the capitol has adequate protections.
Protections from what? I thought J6 was just a bunch of people taking selfies...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's his answer for everything. That Biden should never be held accountable for not fixing problems.
If you'll excuse us, grown folks are talking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Illegal entries have been higher than the highest month under Trump EVERY SINGLE MONTH under Biden!
They are not governing under remotely similar circumstances. I just explained this and why it is the single biggest factor in this conversation. Do you have a response to it?
There was NOT a spike starting in the 2010s other than one in late 2018-mid 2019 that Trump's policies put a stop to
And what caused that spike?
I do not understand for the life of me how you can simultaneously argue that Biden's policies are giving incentives for illegals to migrate here while denying that Trump and the right wing machine telling these people that migrating here is easy and they will get a bunch of free stuff is not a significant factor. Where do you think these people get their information from? Do you think they are all at home googling US asylum laws and consulting with attorneys?
Right now under Biden the incentive to illegally migrate is much much stronger because in the majority of cases, his administration releases any given illegal alien into the country without a court date or any type of tracking, and the odds of them actually being deported are extremely low.
Again, what has changed from US immigration laws under Biden vs any previous president before Trump?
You haven't answered the second part of the question: is sitting around and doing absolutely nothing for a year and a half acceptable leadership to you?
I didn't answer it because it's a nonsense question. The high numbers you are referencing comes from encounters, so obviously border patrol has been very busy. If we had open borders as many like to say, they wouldn't be doing anything.
I don't think Biden is a good leader at all, and certainly not on this issue. To me immigration is one area where it would be so easy to make headway with the moderate part of the right wing electorate but he's busy appeasing the far left who thinks we should be giving these people free healthcare. And to the extent he's doing anything he doesn't make any effort to sell it, so it's like he thinks people are just going to vote democratic just because.
But Biden's leadership is not the topic here, the reason for the migrant surge is. My position is that they are migrating primarily because of the circumstances they face at home. You think it's primarily driven by US asylum laws that are no different than they were before Trump. Not sure how we make headway on this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Of course not, because they get their news from the same people literally texting the game plan back and forth with the Trump administration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pelosi will be held accountable for not defending Democracy with the National Guard in 4 months.
What a stupid post.
So you support holding accountable one of the prime targets of the Jan 6th mob but not the individual who incited them and who the mob themselves literally told us they were listening to.
You are not a serious person to talk to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I never contended that Biden's policies have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this, that's a complete strawman. The conversation is about what is primarily responsible for the surge, and I don't see any evidence that Biden's policies are it for reasons already explained.
You talk about the surge starting in the late 2010's, which is exactly when Trump put all of this under a global spotlight. I'm not sure how you conclude anything other than his rhetoric having a significant impact on creating the problem you are crediting him with fixing.
But beyond that, people do not abandon the only place they've ever known as their home to trek across an entire country in order to *attempt* to get into a country completely foreign to them just because our policies are more lenient than they were before. They do it because their situation is dire, so if you really want to know why the numbers are so bad you should start by looking at that.
I don't think it's coincidence that the entire world is going through an economic collapse in the aftermath of a pandemic that upended the global supply chain and now the number of people in central America who are unhappy with their opportunity for a better life have dramatically increased. To look at that and think the bulk of those people did this "because Biden" seems quite silly to me.
So yes if Biden's policies were more inhumane like the former president i'm sure that would make an impact, but to act like his policies are the cause of it I think ignores the bigger picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
There's no dispute that the question of who benefits from a political narrative tends to shape people's opinions, but this phenomenon is not equal on both sides. One example, FiveThirtyEight complied polling data over the past few years on how people thought the economy was doing. In November of 2016 the percentage of democrats who said things were going well was in the high 70's. Within one year that number dropped to the high 50's. For republicans, they started off in the teens. Within one year that number was over 90%.
There is no metric that's supports the shift even amongst democratic voters, but the republican shift is just downright ludacris and unquestionably disconnected from reality.
I think our culture explains this. Politics is a big part of the culture for rural and/or white America, and people here tend to view it almost as team sport and a source of personal identity. You just don't see it anywhere on the same scale on the left.
So sure, democrats probably would not be fighting as hard for voting rights of it wouldn't benefit the party, but most democrats actually do believe in democracy so it's not a conflict.
The Kamala Haris example is less valid. We all, democrats included, wanted a vaccine but at that time Trump was getting way too involved creating a legitimate fear that he would politicize the approval process. Kamala was reacting to his inappropriate involvement, not to the vaccine itself. When Trump stepped back and let the process play out all of this talk disappeared.
I don't get the "we don't agree on issues" point. If we agreed it wouldn't be an issue.
Created: