All Things Trump: the story continues...

[Cunt]

Well Cunt, as Tero pointed out, the impeachment team lays all of this out. You just have to be willing to steelman their argument: find their strongest case and argue against it.

Here's the video the Dems showed the Senate. Maybe you could start with that, if you really believe what you say.

As I began to watch the heavily edited video, I noticed that they cut it exactly at the point where he was about to say 'peacefully and patriotically'. They lost me there. I'll wait for them to make coherent arguments, instead of the usual 'quote-mining' stuff they use.

Did you hear his say 'peacefully and patriotically'? Or has that particular clip been screened out by most of the 'fair and balanced' news agencies?

That's why I'll wait for their accusation, when they point out what he did, when he did it, I'll expect to see lots of other politicians getting away with the same behaviour.

Unless they are accusing him of something unexpected. I listened to his speech, and didn't see much particularly rowdy. Especially in light of that Time article (Molly Ball?)

Though to think that the sitting President called on his party, the most heavily-armed group of voters in history, to do an insurrection, one would have to wonder why they left their guns at home.

Maybe the shaman will weigh in. He seems to be a ringleader.

I'm not surprised that you ran away from this. It sounds like you didn't watch all of it either, and I don't expect you will ever produce examples of other politicians getting away with the same behavior. You talk a good game, but the impeachment managers have the stronger argument.

And that was just their first volley.

But don't worry, the vote is rigged. Trump will be fine.

I don't know what you think I disagree with, but I know what they are claiming. If you want to know if I think someone else said something as bad, grab the quote in question, or I'll just point out that you could find such from any conservative commentator you listen to.

The compilation is often led with quotes like 'get in their faces' and finishes with Schumers riot-threat of the Supreme Court, when he thought they were going to decide wrong.

But if you want to point to a specific example, and see if fair rules are applied to both sides, I'm game.

(oh, and the video is unavailable in my country, and with my schedule right now, sorry)

Go listen to your podcasts then.

I have been.

Mostly that audiobook, but I also took in a great one, where the interviewee was a victim of slavery, sold into sex slavery (for 300 bucks or thereabouts) when she was 13.

Guess which countries?

[Sean Hayden]

Cunt and some others on the right are ignoring all that came before the 6th. You can't really argue with someone who's willing to act as though a single phrase from the speech given on the 6th overrides everything that came before.

It's too stupid to be helpful.

I'm guessing they'd instantly recognize how stupid it is if we were discussing Democrats. If we were going to discuss how Democrats have contributed to violence we wouldn't focus solely on random quotes they've made; lord knows we'd be screwed by all the "peace and love" crap, how could they have meant violence!? The bulk of our work would be in identifying the movements they've most closely associated with, and the kind of ideas they've nurtured over the years.

So, what kind of ideas has Trump nurtured during his Presidency, and leading up to the 6th? Are any of them relevant to what took place on the 6th?

[Sean Hayden]

But don't worry, the vote is rigged. Trump will be fine.

--yep, he doesn't need a defense. I really wish he would have asked to be defended by a parrot. If he really wanted to destroy these people, the crazier his defense the better.

They must have shown him the video after all...

[Joe]

Well Cunt, as Tero pointed out, the impeachment team lays all of this out. You just have to be willing to steelman their argument: find their strongest case and argue against it.

Here's the video the Dems showed the Senate. Maybe you could start with that, if you really believe what you say.

As I began to watch the heavily edited video, I noticed that they cut it exactly at the point where he was about to say 'peacefully and patriotically'. They lost me there. I'll wait for them to make coherent arguments, instead of the usual 'quote-mining' stuff they use.

Did you hear his say 'peacefully and patriotically'? Or has that particular clip been screened out by most of the 'fair and balanced' news agencies?

That's why I'll wait for their accusation, when they point out what he did, when he did it, I'll expect to see lots of other politicians getting away with the same behaviour.

Unless they are accusing him of something unexpected. I listened to his speech, and didn't see much particularly rowdy. Especially in light of that Time article (Molly Ball?)

Though to think that the sitting President called on his party, the most heavily-armed group of voters in history, to do an insurrection, one would have to wonder why they left their guns at home.

Maybe the shaman will weigh in. He seems to be a ringleader.

I'm not surprised that you ran away from this. It sounds like you didn't watch all of it either, and I don't expect you will ever produce examples of other politicians getting away with the same behavior. You talk a good game, but the impeachment managers have the stronger argument.

And that was just their first volley.

But don't worry, the vote is rigged. Trump will be fine.

I don't know what you think I disagree with, but I know what they are claiming. If you want to know if I think someone else said something as bad, grab the quote in question, or I'll just point out that you could find such from any conservative commentator you listen to.

The compilation is often led with quotes like 'get in their faces' and finishes with Schumers riot-threat of the Supreme Court, when he thought they were going to decide wrong.

But if you want to point to a specific example, and see if fair rules are applied to both sides, I'm game.

The video is the specific example. If you're not able to take on their case, but think some commentator has done it, then link to it.

[Cunt]

Your specific example, when I looked, was edited to remove some of what Trump said.

I have seen similar collages from the right, showing Dem politicians cheering on the rioting throughout 2020. One hinted that Harris retweeted a fundraiser meant to raise bail for rioters.

I'm not saying what Trump said was good, I'm just saying that it wasn't all that remarkable. It sure isn't unexpected that the vid is edited to push an idea, that's how both sides operate.

[Brian Peacock]

The rhetoric Trump used (he DID say go peacefully and patriotically) wasn't as bad as some used in the recent past by Dems.

I guess he gets in trouble because HIS words were effective.

Examples please of Dems whipping up a crowd to storm the Capitol.

Also reducing the entire social and political context of what took place to the 'proper' meaning of certain words is a bit lame.

My claim is, whatever things Trump said, other politicians have said similar inflammatory things. When asked for examples, I asked for something to counter.

Yeah, I noticed that.

None are there, so consider it dropped, but I already mentioned this...maybe people misunderstood it...

The erosion of the word 'peaceful' in 2020, means when Trump said 'go peacefully', it could be taken with double meaning.

I'm not trying to say that word for word comparisons are fair, especially with examples like that.

Just saying I wish you all a FULLY peaceful bowel movement (as opposed to the ominous 'mostly peaceful')

Nah. You're just backing out now. You implied Trump is no better or worse than any other political operator, specifically Democrats, and his words have just been misconstrued - probably maliciously. Now you want other to provides you with evidence to support your claim.

Let's put aside all the he-said-she-said nonsense. Do you think it would have been a better, more appropriate, just, or legal etc outcome if Trump's supporters had succeeded in denying Biden the presidency on Jan 6th?

[Cunt]

Put any words in my mouth you want. I won't chew for you.

As to if I think it would be better if the violent rioters on the 6th stopped Biden from being anointed, NO.

The stop should be made in court, not in a riot.

I also don't think the riots that day were any real danger of 'insurrection', since they were too stupid to accomplish anything. Other than murder, what does anyone honestly think they could have accomplished?

A coup?

[Joe]

Your specific example, when I looked, was edited to remove some of what Trump said.

I have seen similar collages from the right, showing Dem politicians cheering on the rioting throughout 2020. One hinted that Harris retweeted a fundraiser meant to raise bail for rioters.

I'm not saying what Trump said was good, I'm just saying that it wasn't all that remarkable. It sure isn't unexpected that the vid is edited to push an idea, that's how both sides operate.

Tough. The video makes a compelling argument that Trump incited violence with what he said, and showed specifically what he said that they thought incited the violence. You say you can show Democratic politicians doing the same thing, and say you saw similar collages, but you haven't shown anything.

If you ain't linking, you're lying.

[Brian Peacock]

Put any words in my mouth you want. I won't chew for you.

As to if I think it would be better if the violent rioters on the 6th stopped Biden from being anointed, NO.

The stop should be made in court, not in a riot.

I also don't think the riots that day were any real danger of 'insurrection', since they were too stupid to accomplish anything. Other than murder, what does anyone honestly think they could have accomplished?

A coup?

So am I right in thinking that you reckon the mob on Jan 6th were foolish in their actions and unrealistic in their expectations? Do you also think they acted spontaneously and that the speeches at the rally had no impact on what happened?

[Cunt]

Your specific example, when I looked, was edited to remove some of what Trump said.

I have seen similar collages from the right, showing Dem politicians cheering on the rioting throughout 2020. One hinted that Harris retweeted a fundraiser meant to raise bail for rioters.

I'm not saying what Trump said was good, I'm just saying that it wasn't all that remarkable. It sure isn't unexpected that the vid is edited to push an idea, that's how both sides operate.

Tough. The video makes a compelling argument

By 'compelling argument' your video leads off with edited video, conspicuously excluding relevant information.

If that is their 'evidence', you are quite credulous. I'm not trusting at all, and this glaring exclusion screams 'edited for dramatic effect at the expense of honesty'.

that Trump incited violence with what he said, and showed specifically what he said that they thought incited the violence. You say you can show Democratic politicians doing the same thing, and say you saw similar collages, but you haven't shown anything.

If you ain't linking, you're lying.

I'm not lying, I just don't see this propaganda video as some kind of fair evidence. Was there some clarity after they opened their little movie by dishonestly editing what he said?

I remember how far the 'Charlottesville' lie propagated, despite how easy it is to find the unedited speech, so the tactic isn't going to work on me.

Maybe it is, and you'll say what it is he went 'over the line' with. I mean, remember that if you complain that he said the election was stolen, that Time article said the same thing.

[Cunt]

Put any words in my mouth you want. I won't chew for you.

As to if I think it would be better if the violent rioters on the 6th stopped Biden from being anointed, NO.

The stop should be made in court, not in a riot.

I also don't think the riots that day were any real danger of 'insurrection', since they were too stupid to accomplish anything. Other than murder, what does anyone honestly think they could have accomplished?

A coup?

So am I right in thinking that you reckon the mob on Jan 6th were foolish in their actions and unrealistic in their expectations?

No, but my disagreement isn't what you think.

I think those 'mobbing deliberately' were, as you put it, foolish and unrealistic. I also acknowledge that others with no clear goals got swept up in it.

Separating those two groups is ticklish work.

Do you also think they acted spontaneously and that the speeches at the rally had no impact on what happened?

I'm not sure about the timing, but reports are that lots of people were planning beforehand. It was the premise for closing Parler, I think.

The planning before it is not really in dispute. I may have even said myself that I expected it to be a terrible idea to go there.

Righties are saying that the speech took place too close to the breach, and no-one could have sprinted the distance from Trump to do the breach. I don't know, but I think it would be reckless for them to base their case on one speech.

[Tero]

White patriots!

DC818192-06D9-4D09-92BE-744AEC21E9CB.jpeg (88.09 KiB) Viewed 735 times

[Sean Hayden]

They still can't believe they're facing jail time. Have you seen the Texas woman claiming she's a victim? In one video she was asking for a pardon!? She can't believe it, she doesn't deserve jail for what she did.

Poor woman doesn't know we all say that....

[Joe]

Your specific example, when I looked, was edited to remove some of what Trump said.

I have seen similar collages from the right, showing Dem politicians cheering on the rioting throughout 2020. One hinted that Harris retweeted a fundraiser meant to raise bail for rioters.

I'm not saying what Trump said was good, I'm just saying that it wasn't all that remarkable. It sure isn't unexpected that the vid is edited to push an idea, that's how both sides operate.

Tough. The video makes a compelling argument

By 'compelling argument' your video leads off with edited video, conspicuously excluding relevant information.

If that is their 'evidence', you are quite credulous. I'm not trusting at all, and this glaring exclusion screams 'edited for dramatic effect at the expense of honesty'.

that Trump incited violence with what he said, and showed specifically what he said that they thought incited the violence. You say you can show Democratic politicians doing the same thing, and say you saw similar collages, but you haven't shown anything.

If you ain't linking, you're lying.

I'm not lying, I just don't see this propaganda video as some kind of fair evidence. Was there some clarity after they opened their little movie by dishonestly editing what he said?

I remember how far the 'Charlottesville' lie propagated, despite how easy it is to find the unedited speech, so the tactic isn't going to work on me.

Maybe it is, and you'll say what it is he went 'over the line' with. I mean, remember that if you complain that he said the election was stolen, that Time article said the same thing.

You still haven't addressed the video directly. Saying it was edited is an excuse, and calling it propaganda is name calling. Calling it dishonestly edited is bullshit if you don't show how it was done. The rest is bluster.

You asked for this, remember?

My claim is, whatever things Trump said, other politicians have said similar inflammatory things. When asked for examples, I asked for something to counter.

I gave you the Dem's best example. Where's that "steelman argument" you keep talking about?

[Hermit]

Righties are saying that the speech took place too close to the breach, and no-one could have sprinted the distance from Trump to do the breach. I don't know, but I think it would be reckless for them to base their case on one speech.

They are wrong.

About 40 percent of the phones tracked near the rally stage on the National Mall during the speeches were also found in and around the Capitol during the siege — a clear link between those who’d listened to the president and his allies and then marched on the building.

Click on the link and scroll down a bit. You'll find a time lapse animation of cell phone signals as they make their way from the location where Trump spoke to the crowd of supporters to the Capitol. That's not the central point of the article, but it does show that thousands did make their way from A to B in time for the smashing into the place. There is only a distance of 2.3 kilometres (1.4 miles) between the points. You don't even have to jog to cover it in 35 minutes.

Trump welcomed what was about to happen. More than that, he encouraged the his crowd to make their way to the Capitol after his speech..

I don't know, but I think it would be reckless for them to base their case on one speech.

Nobody is basing their case on one speech. Why would they? Trump has tweeted several times, inviting protesters to amass at the capitol, starting at least a month before the event.

Trump tweeted this on Dec 19, 2020: Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" (My emphasis)

And this on Dec 31, 2020: "JANUARY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!" (his allcaps)

What do you think he meant by "will be wild!" ? Wildly peaceful? Wildly nonviolent?