And Now Time For Our Regularly Scheduled Conspiracy Theory


Carborendum

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

No, but I'm encouraged by this "Uncommitted" fellow that's rising up the Dem ranks. I have a feeling he's going to wallop Dean Phillips in Dean's home state next week.

20240228_104847.jpg

Poor Dean Phillips.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/01/09/rep-dean-phillips-zero-supporters-new-hampshire-challenge-biden-falters/amp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

No, but I'm encouraged by this "Uncommitted" fellow that's rising up the Dem ranks. I have a feeling he's going to wallop Dean Phillips in Dean's home state next week.

20240228_104847.jpg

It's funny when you think a vote for "uncommitted" is a vote for "literally anyone OTHER THAN Biden, Williamson, or Phillips".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think I understand Trump's rhetoric re: "Let Russia have any Nato country that won't meet it's funding committments"

https://drescherlaw.com/case-results/threat-bankruptcy-helps-tenant-renegotiate-commercial-lease/

I was looking for a clip from an old episode of Law and Order, where the new boss impressed everyone by threatening to move offices, which brought his landlord to the negotiating table, whereupon he negotiated a much superior lease agreement, which allowed him to pay his co-workers' bonuses.  Basically, Trump has no intention of weakening NATO or abandoning any of it's members.  It's a shock tactic to enable the under-contributing nations to step up and do what they agreed to do.  Politicians and leaders of nations do what gets them support, so if you're the leader of a nation that's used to old reliable USofA paying your bills for you, why on earth would you want to spend your precious political capital with your own people by making them pay more?  The specter of Russia coming to get them while the US sits there and laughs at the cheapskates getting what they deserve, that's why.

Geopolitics is a nasty game.  Like a group of unsupervised 12 year old boys fighting over the best toys in the sandbox.

A big part of why we're spending so much money on our military is because our ostensible allies spend so little on theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

A big part of why we're spending so much money on our military is because our ostensible allies spend so little on theirs.

I don't believe it for a minute.  While I'm sure it's true our theoretical allies aren't spending much on their military, I don't think this is the true reason we're spending so much on ours.  It may be what people say, it may be the excuse they give, it may be what people believe, but it's not the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, zil2 said:

While I'm sure it's true our theoretical allies aren't spending much on their military, I don't think this is the true reason we're spending so much on ours.  

Good point.  NATO spends roughly $366 billion, and although France/Germany/Spain would bump that up substantially if they met their %GDP goals, them and everyone else would only make up a few tens of paltry billions, maybe, if they started paying their share.  While the US spends $812 billion per year.

image.png.099eb5114136fcb84783fd29e686f93c.png

 

But yeah, if the US had a few tens of paltry billions it didn't need to spend on NATO, that's not exactly pocket change.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand a conspiracy requires the basis of two elements of group intent – in essence, intent derived by two or more individuals.  The first is an element of secrecy.  The second is the element of unlawfulness or harmfulness.   Both of these elements ought to be clear and without ambiguity.  Keeping something secret does not require that the secret be directly hidden.  Secret, in my opinion, includes lying or not divulging the entire truth of a matter.   There is another element of misdirection that has many possibilities including gas lighting efforts to highlight or divert attention to something else.  This element of misdirection is very popular in religious and political conspiracies.

The second part of unlawfulness or harmfulness, though seemingly easy to define can become clouded.  Especially attempting to determine what is harmful.  When I was working for the Defense Department, I encountered a lot of classified information that seemed to have no other purpose beyond keeping the citizens in the dark about what was really going on.  One could easily argue that no harm was intended and too much information would be confusing.  Often when an error is discovered or committed by accident there is often and effort to correct or cover up the error to prevent unintended consequences.  Very often the effort to coverup or misdirect is more harmfull than the initial action or intent.

Perhaps it is possible that conspiracies are created to diminish the unlawfulness or harmfulness or to focus or channel minimize what one thinks is harmful. 

There have been some on this thread that use the notion or term denoting conspiracy theories.  I am inclined to think that especially in religious and political circles – denoting something as a conspiracy theory is an odd characteristic in that without proof of what one is claiming to be theory (fantasy) without proof – the logic of label without proof is no different from what is being criticized.

There is one last problem concerning what is proof verses evidence and who is allowed to stack the deck of proof and evidence.  I do believe that under the law – individuals should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  However, when it comes to any group keeping secrets – I believe that it is best to assume guilty (harmful intent) until innocence is proven or demonstrated.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2024 at 10:05 AM, Phoenix_person said:

No, but I'm encouraged by this "Uncommitted" fellow that's rising up the Dem ranks. I have a feeling he's going to wallop Dean Phillips in Dean's home state next week.

20240228_104847.jpg

 

The Funny thing Rashida Tlaib is that if elected, this time Trump is not going to miss his shot at her.  If she's lucky she'll still remain a US citizen.  He tried banning Muslims and people like her last time.  IF she thinks he's going to be nicer to her this time around...ha....hahhahahahahahah.

I don't know how she reverses the trend she's pushing for those to not support Biden, but as it stands, if it's down to Biden and Trump...a vote of uncommited is going to be basically a vote for Trump. 

I think when Trump wins (IF he wins) every Arab American and every Palestinian American are going to be sorely wishing they had done things differently.   If they think Biden is bad...they have very short memories.

 

(For example...who do you think moved the embassy...it wasn't Biden...)

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

The Funny thing Rashida Tlaib is that if elected, this time Trump is not going to miss his shot at her.  If she's lucky she'll still remain a US citizen.  He tried banning Muslims and people like her last time.  IF she thinks he's going to be nicer to her this time around...ha....hahhahahahahahah.

I don't know how she reverses the trend she's pushing for those to not support Biden, but as it stands, if it's down to Biden and Trump...a vote of uncommited is going to be basically a vote for Trump. 

I think when Trump wins (IF he wins) every Arab American and every Palestinian American are going to be sorely wishing they had done things differently.   If they think Biden is bad...they have very short memories.

 

(For example...who do you think moved the embassy...it wasn't Biden...)

I think a lot of "uncommitted" voters are going to end up voting for Biden. Maybe not all of them, but hopefully enough to reelect him. This pushback during the primary cycle is meant to send Dems a message, namely that Biden can't win on the strength of suburban white liberal voters alone. He NEEDS leftists, Muslims, and other minority voters behind him, and their support isn't automatic. The hope is that the pressure will expedite efforts to establish a cease-fire in Gaza. The sooner that happens, the more time Biden has to mend bridges. I can't speak to how seriously the "uncommitted" movement is being taken at the White house, but I think it's safe to say that Michigan Dem leaders are nervous, and word I'm getting from the Twin Cities is that this week's DFL caucus was.... stressful. The senior caucus in particular seems worried about DSA "infiltration".

20240301_183634.jpg.0128dcd66f35330df7ec25f83b6a465d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have short memories when they talk about January 6th 2021.

In 2005, thirty-two Democrats in Congress including Barbara Boxer attempted overturn the results of the presidential election by objecting to Ohio's electoral votes in an attempt to elect John Kerry.

In 2016, celebrities saturated the media asking in December that the State electors swing vote for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election instead of Donald Trump.

Elections have been contested throughout history in America.  They will continue to do so in the future as well as long as America exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

People have short memories when they talk about January 6th 2021.

In 2005, thirty-two Democrats in Congress including Barbara Boxer attempted overturn the results of the presidential election by objecting to Ohio's electoral votes in an attempt to elect John Kerry.

In 2016, celebrities saturated the media asking in December that the State electors swing vote for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election instead of Donald Trump.

Elections have been contested throughout history in America.  They will continue to do so in the future as well as long as America exists.

Contested elections are common and a normal symptom of a healthy democracy. The same cannot be said about what happened on J6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to get caught upon the news, but apparently an appellate court ruled that something a bunch of judges were using to enhance the sentences of people being convicted over J6 was used improperly and so the sentences at least 100 people received were thus quite unjust. 

This means these individuals must be given new sentences, and it's possible that some of them might be able to go free considering time served. 

edit - 

Finally found a halfway mainstream source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/01/appeal-obstruction-trump-january-sixth/

Edited by Ironhold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Contested elections are common and a normal symptom of a healthy democracy. The same cannot be said about what happened on J6.

I totally agree with you. Before j6 the overwhelming majority of conservatives were law and order types who would be appalled at such behavior. Now, Trumpers either endorse it, wish it went further, or try to downplay it.  Most old school pre Trump conservatives might not be comfortable with what happened, but will point out violence the left has done to try and reconcile their views on J6.     

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2024 at 5:38 PM, Phoenix_person said:

word I'm getting from the Twin Cities is that this week's DFL caucus was.... stressful. The senior caucus in particular seems worried about DSA "infiltration".

I had to do some serious googling here to decipher these acronyms.  @Phoenix_person, let me know if I get anything wrong.

DFL: The democrat party in Minnesota.  Usually Democrats call themselves Democrats, but for whatever reason, the Democrats in MN is the "Democrat Farmer-Labor Party".

DSA: Democratic Socialists of America.  These ain't liberals, they're lefties.  If you don't know the difference, it's about time you went to the two wikipedia pages to hear how they describe themselves. 

So, a bunch of Minnesotan old democrats are mad because [insert crotchety old lady Minnesotan voice] a bunch of commies are showin' up and pretending to be old democrats, but they're really commies! [/colMv]

Dems are happy with Biden.  Leftie socialists tend to be mad at him because of his "soft stance on Israel".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m confused as to why anyone would take any of the J6 accusations of “insurrection” seriously.  It’s been well established that what happened was not done by “right-wing extremists.”  Furthermore, those who listened to his speech that morning, know that Donald Trump never said anything even remotely close to inciting an insurrection.  In fact, he said the exact opposite.  He instructed everyone to be peaceful.  But…Donald Trump said it, so he was really telling them to incite violence. Right?
 

Also, those implying that Republicans trying to challenge the 2020 election are just doing the same thing that the Democrats did in the previous election, get real.  Anyone who can do basic math knows that the results from the 2020 election don’t add up.  In Detroit, on the night of the election, where thousands of ballots miraculously appeared overnight in favor of Biden, after Trump was winning, the election workers covered the windows during the count so that the public would not be able to see what was going on.  And don’t get me started on changing the rules before the election, along with all of the ballot harvesting.  It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to know that there was blatant cheating going on.  People were questioning things before Republicans even said anything about it, but they did have a right and a duty to challenge it.  I just wish they wouldn’t have given up so easily.

I also don’t understand this idea of “Well, I want to be fair minded and impartial, so to prove that to myself and to others, instead of actually looking at the truth, I’m just going to claim that both sides are equally guilty.”  Please.  While the Republican Party certainly has its own issues, the biggest problem is that it has been infiltrated by the left.  However, in no way whatsoever are the Republicans wrong on this issue.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2024 at 2:57 PM, zil2 said:

I don't believe it for a minute.  While I'm sure it's true our theoretical allies aren't spending much on their military, I don't think this is the true reason we're spending so much on ours.  It may be what people say, it may be the excuse they give, it may be what people believe, but it's not the truth.

We act in our own self-interest. Which is to say, our politicians act in their own self-interest. But that doesn't mean that the US is not carrying too much of NATO's burden. I think we are. Not sure what the appropriate response is, but I'm pretty confident that it isn't to stay the course. As is way too often the case, Trump's blusterings have more than a faint ring of truth to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

I’m confused as to why anyone would take any of the J6 accusations of “insurrection” seriously.  It’s been well established that what happened was not done by “right-wing extremists.”  

J6 just made life weird.  I'm used to being online interacting with lefties and atheists and church critics, and sometimes it seems like the sky in their world just isn't the same color as the sky in my world.   And here in a post-J6 world, I encounter a constant slew of folks on the right, my people, folks who think and vote like me, just saying such weird stuff about J6, that I wonder if the color of their sky is the same color as my sky.

@Jedi_Nephite, of course many of the horrible things that happened on J6 were "done by right-wing extremists".  I'm amazed that anyone could possibly argue against such an obvious set of facts.  Q-anon, Proud Boys, and Oathkeepers are 100% the dictionary definition of "right-wing", and a crapton of them fit the "extremist" definition like a glove.   1200 folks arrested, ~730 guilty pleas, ~165 convicted at trial.  Each one of 'em more red-blooded right wing American than the last one.  An awful lot of convictions for seditious conspiracy from those folks.   

I mean yes, there were also neo-nazis and white supremacists and neo-confederates and kkk folks and that Mormon cosplayer guy who showed up dressed like Captain Moroni with his Title of Liberty.  Those people can't be called "right wing", although the media sure pushes that narrative on occasion.  But holy crap - how can anyone who has given even a cursory scan of the facts, claim that "what happened was not done by right wing extremists"?

 

Quote

Furthermore, those who listened to his speech that morning, know that Donald Trump never said anything even remotely close to inciting an insurrection.  

There I was - sitting in my basement office during Covid remote-work lockdown.  On one screen, I was doing my work.  On the other screen, I was watching Trump's "stop the steal" rally.

Holy, holy, holy, HOLY CRAP was Trump, and Guliani, and especially Trump's son yelling crap into their microphones.  Stoking outrage.  Claiming foul.  Demanding action.  Whipping up the crowd into marching on the capitol with inflammatory phrases like "go march and demand justice", and "take back our government".  Not so much Trump, but yes Guliani, and especially Trump's son.  

About an hour before we started seeing the news of people breaking in and doing damage, I came upstairs and expressed serious concern to my wife.  "I don't understand what the crap Trump is doing.  Doesn't he realize that the most mentally-ill and the fringe-est of the fringe are listening to him and getting ready to start hurting people and get themselves arrested?"

Trump was charged for "incitement of insurrection" by the house, (who impeached him over it and the senate acquitted him of it after he had left office).  So yeah, nobody got convicted of insurrection.  Just seditious conspiracy.  And not Trump. 

"Donald Trump never said anything even remotely close to inciting an insurrection."  Ugh.  What an impossible opinion to defend. 

 

Quote

In fact, he said the exact opposite.  He instructed everyone to be peaceful.  

He did indeed begin instructing people to be peaceful, but not until after all the horrible had happened.   The march hit the capitol a little after 2PM.    Pence and the Senators, engaged in certifying the election, had to stop certifying the election, and started getting evacuated around 2:13.  The peaceful transition of power, a founding cornerstone of our great republic, was interrupted by the people who hit the capitol.  These people had been whipped up into action by Trump, Guliani, and Trump Jr. 
This didn't happen until 2:38 PM.  Look at the time stamp on the tweet, and do the math to convert to Eastern Standard Time:

 

Trump's later appeal for calm happened at 3:13 PM. 

His video for calm happened even later.  

 

I'm a fan of fiery protests.  I'm a fan of people swarming the streets and demanding change.  I'm a fan of  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".  

I'm not a fan of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bodycam_video_taken_at_US_Capitol,_January_6,_2021.webm

I'm not a fan of this (34:20 is when Ashley Babbit begins getting herself shot):
https://archive.org/details/nYiFQbNc65jwFYCWY?start=1993

 

Look, my fellow conservatives.  Our side screwed up royally on J6.  If we're gonna have problems with Antifa and BLM riots, and defend what happened on J6, then we're just as hypocritical as the folks who defend Antifa and BLM riots, but have problems with J6.  

Don't be like that.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

.... But that doesn't mean that the US is not carrying too much of NATO's burden. I think we are. ....

I didn't mean to suggest we weren't.  As far as I'm concerned, they can all be left to fend for themselves.

But that wasn't anywhere near my point.  Satan is the reason the US spends so much money on its military.  The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

About an hour before we started seeing the news of people breaking in and doing damage, I came upstairs and expressed serious concern to my wife.  "I don't understand what the crap Trump is doing.  Doesn't he realize that the most mentally-ill and the fringe-est of the fringe are listening to him and getting ready to start hurting people and get themselves arrested?"

Not only did Trump know what would happen, he was counting on it. Yes, he paid the expected lip service to being peaceful and civil, but he knew it wasn't going to happen. The J6 commission and the information that was volunteered to them by Republicans made that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I had to do some serious googling here to decipher these acronyms.  @Phoenix_person, let me know if I get anything wrong.

DFL: The democrat party in Minnesota.  Usually Democrats call themselves Democrats, but for whatever reason, the Democrats in MN is the "Democrat Farmer-Labor Party".

Correct. The Dems and the Farm-Labor Party joined to form one party in 1944, with the latter being larger, more progressive, and more powerful at the time.

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

DSA: Democratic Socialists of America.  These ain't liberals, they're lefties.  If you don't know the difference, it's about time you went to the two wikipedia pages to hear how they describe themselves.

Yep. The DSA realized that infiltrating the Democratic Party is easier than trying to operate as a legitimate third party. DSA folks typically favor the Bernies and AOCs of the Democratic Party over the Bidens and Clintons.

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, a bunch of Minnesotan old democrats are mad because [insert crotchety old lady Minnesotan voice] a bunch of commies are showin' up and pretending to be old democrats, but they're really commies! [/colMv]

You betcha! Something to remember about the Democratic leaders that are "ruining" deep blue cities/states is that a lot of them are massively unpopular within their local party elements. Here in Minnesota, it's Jacob Frey (MPLS Mayor) and Ken Martin (DFL Chair and DNC Vice-Chair). Elsewhere, there's former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and current NYC Mayor Eric Adams, not to mention former NY Governor Cuomo. They got power the same way Biden did: by kissing the right butts, raising the right amount of money, and not being Republicans. And in their states/cities, that was enough. We have head-scratchingly bad GOP leaders in states like Texas and Alabama for the same reasons.

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Dems are happy with Biden.  Leftie socialists tend to be mad at him because of his "soft stance on Israel".  

His hardening stance on the border isn't helping much either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

But holy crap - how can anyone who has given even a cursory scan of the facts, claim that "what happened was not done by right wing extremists"?

Because "right wing extremist" has almost no meaning. It is a media-invented bugbear.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Holy, holy, holy, HOLY CRAP was Trump, and Guliani, and especially Trump's son yelling crap into their microphones.  Stoking outrage.  Claiming foul.  Demanding action.  Whipping up the crowd into marching on the capitol with inflammatory phrases like "go march and demand justice", and "take back our government".

And this is vastly different from the left-wing actions taken throughout the entire election that were implicitly and sometimes explicitly approved by the media—how, exactly?

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not so much Trump, but yes Guliani, and especially Trump's son.

So Trump, but not exactly.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Trump was charged for "incitement of insurrection" by the house, (who impeached him over it and the senate acquitted him of it after he had left office).  So yeah, nobody got convicted of insurrection.  Just seditious conspiracy.  And not Trump. 

"Donald Trump never said anything even remotely close to inciting an insurrection."  Ugh.  What an impossible opinion to defend. 

Seriously? That an openly partisan House impeached Trump for a non-existent insurrection somehow proves Trump guilty? This is not even close to true.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Quote

In fact, he said the exact opposite.  He instructed everyone to be peaceful.  

He did indeed begin instructing people to be peaceful, but not until after all the horrible had happened.   The march hit the capitol a little after 2PM.    Pence and the Senators, engaged in certifying the election, had to stop certifying the election, and started getting evacuated around 2:13.  The peaceful transition of power, a founding cornerstone of our great republic, was interrupted by the people who hit the capitol.  These people had been whipped up into action by Trump, Guliani, and Trump Jr. 

Unbelievable. By your own admission, Trump instructed people to be peaceful. Then some handful of drunken, blathering idiots marched on the Capitol, and suddenly it's an "insurrection"? And Trump is responsible for that, because he voiced the opinion that the vote was not legitimate?

Methinks you are trying far too hard to be "fair and unbiased", to the point that you're way overreaching and assigning blame to the political Right that the Right does not own. It is not the fault of the Right wing, or of Republicans in general, or of conservatives, or even of Trump, that some boozed-up morons walked through the Capitol building pretending to be heroic and humiliating themselves.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm a fan of fiery protests.  I'm a fan of people swarming the streets and demanding change.  I'm a fan of  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

I am not a fan of fiery protests or street swarming. I think people who engage in such protests are, generally speaking, fools and shills, empty-headed partisans who could not think their way out of a subway conversation. I think such people are normally made of of Lefties, and that they should be treated with all the contempt that the J6 fools seem to inspire in their detractors.

And if you think the videos you linked are so terribly scary, take a look at video from the BLM riots. That was an actual example of lawlessness and insurrection, an example widely supported by the Democrats and other lefties, including the media, with no punishment enforced against basically anyone.

And then everyone in the media focuses on the J6.

We're not stupid, NT. We see what's going on here. We do not dismiss what happened on J6. We assert that it was far less dangerous and criminal (and organized by nefarious actors) than what happened before. We decry the openly partisan nature of the "debate" around these events conducted by the media. It is a witch hunt.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Look, my fellow conservatives.  Our side screwed up royally on J6.  If we're gonna have problems with Antifa and BLM riots, and defend what happened on J6, then we're just as hypocritical as the folks who defend Antifa and BLM riots, but have problems with J6.  

No. "Our side" did not "screw up royally". That is a false allegation, assigning the blame of the actions of a few to the many. "Our side" had nothing to do with J6. I do not believe that Trump was directly involved, and I suspect his indirect involvement was limited to encouraging the public crying and screaming and other ridiculousness that you support, but not active suppression of Congressional activity. Whatever Trump tried to do in that regard, he tried to do through public actors in their official capacity.

If you want to claim that Trump was trying to get people to do illegal or at least questionable things to delay the election count, go for it. Maybe you're right. If such actions were investigated, charges brought, and convictions made in a court of law, I and most other conservatives would support it. But shockingly enough (<--I'm being sarcastic here, in case anyone missed it), that's not the route this whole thing has taken. Rather, it's been media setup, constant politicking, and Colorado (et alia) media-driven political idiots making blatantly illegal (and insurrectionist, if we're being honest) efforts to remove a candidate from the ballot who has been convicted of absolutely nothing sedition-wise.

Trump is a funny guy to have as a hero. At first glance (like, say, in 2016), it's hard to come up off the cuff with a less likeable, supportable candidate for President of the United States of America than Donald Trump. But the more I hear his ridiculous bellowing, the less ridiculous it sounds. The more I see the results of his efforts, the less I hate him.

Meanwhile, the media is baffled that we don't like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

Unbelievable. By your own admission, Trump instructed people to be peaceful. Then some handful of drunken, blathering idiots marched on the Capitol, and suddenly it's an "insurrection"? 

This is an example of the whole "my people seem to have a different colored sky than me" thing I've noticed about J6.  It's so bizarre to me.  Even Vort, one of the smartest, most reasonable people I know, seems to enter this bizarro world where they read something critical of J6, and hear the exact opposite of what got said.

Vort, could you read again, the timeline I laid out?  You're far better at math than I'll ever be, yet you seem to have discarded the rules that make 3:13 pm happen after 2:38, and 2:38 happen after 2:13, and 2:13 happen after 2PM.  You're also welcome to review the documented timeline yourself, and check it against mine.  And could you also read again where I talked specifically about Trump's charges, and the difference between insurrection and seditious conspiracy?  It seems like you're reading what I said, and running it through some sort of mirror image generator.  Is it opposite day or something?

And since when is "oh yeah, well how about what the left does?" a valid response to my post?  If I kick you between the legs, is my defense of "well, Hilary Clinton once kicked someone between the legs twice and I see you fail to mention it" an adequate defense?  Especially when yes, I did indeed, mention it?   Do I need to virtue signal "the left does far worse things, far more often" a bunch more before I can respond to a post?                               

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
2 hours ago, Vort said:

Unbelievable. By your own admission, Trump instructed people to be peaceful. Then some handful of drunken, blathering idiots marched on the Capitol, and suddenly it's an "insurrection"? 

This is an example of the whole "my people seem to have a different colored sky than me" thing I've noticed about J6.  It's so bizarre to me.  Even Vort, one of the smartest, most reasonable people I know, seems to enter this bizarro world where they read something critical of J6, and hear the exact opposite of what got said.

My fatal flaw (as noted above) was incorrectly ordering the events. Yes, I understand that the order of events was your whole point. (Well, not your whole point, but an important part of it.) In that, you are right and I am wrong. Trump's calls for peace took place after the whole shebang went off.

But I actually don't care about that part. I assume Trump did not realize exactly what was happening, and when he became really aware of how "his side" was being embarrassed by the actions of the protesters, he tweeted off his humble, peace-giving advice. (More sarcasm, for the humor-impaired.) Were his tweets convenient and self-serving? That's entirely possible. Were they insincere? Maybe so. But they cannot reasonably be counted against him. Trump was calling for peace. That cannot be twisted to say, "Look, he was secretly encouraging seditious behavior!" This is true, even if Trump was actually acting in a self-serving and insincere manner.

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Vort, could you read again, the timeline I laid out?  You're far better at math than I'll ever be, yet you seem to have discarded the rules that make 3:13 pm happen after 2:38, and 2:38 happen after 2:13, and 2:13 happen after 2PM.  You're also welcome to review the documented timeline yourself, and check it against mine.  And could you also read again where I talked specifically about Trump's charges, and the difference between insurrection and seditious conspiracy?  It seems like you're reading what I said, and running it through some sort of mirror image generator.  Is it opposite day or something?

No, not opposite day. Possibly "Vort not reading carefully and responding exactly to what's there" day. But as I said, I don't care much about the timeline, except insofar as it might actually exonerate or condemn Trump. I don't think it does either, though I'd lean slightly more towards "exonerate" than "condemn".

In any case, I freely grant you that point. The timeline does not demonstrate Trump getting right on top of the (so-called) insurrection at the earliest possible moment and immediately pleading for calm.

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

And since when is "oh yeah, well how about what the left does?" a valid response to my post?  If I kick you between the legs, is my defense of "well, Hilary Clinton once kicked someone between the legs twice and I see you fail to mention it" an adequate defense?  Especially when yes, I did indeed, mention it?   Do I need to virtue signal "the left does far worse things, far more often" a bunch more before I can respond to a post?       

Yes, indeed! And I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek. The J6 incident does not exist in a vacuum. The background to the event was many years, even decades, of the media championing the Left and ignoring the Left's "peccadillos" (little Clinton reference there) while propounding and magnifying any perceived infraction by the Right. George W. Bush was personally responsible for everything from oil price increases to the melting ice caps. Molly Ivins, may she rest in hell peace, took every opportunity to blame Bush for everything she could possibly pin on him, no matter how absurd. Her co-columnists and media cronies said not one word against her unhinged railings. That's one example among thousands.

Yes, the fact that the Left acts vastly worse than J6 and doesn't get called on it is not only relevant, IT'S THE WHOLE POINT. The J6 incident was an act of stupidity, more laughable than concerning. The same cannot possibly be said of the BLM riots. Yet which of the two events has resulted in YEARS of breast-beating by the press, and which was essentially poo-pooed out of existence and ignored to this day?

You treat the J6 incident as if it was exactly as serious as the press claimed (and claims) it to have been. It was not, but you preach the line on that. So yes, I maintain that if you are going to take that stance, that it is only reasonable that you voice vastly more concern for the vastly more concerning incidents that preceded J6, and that doubtless at least indirectly influenced its very occurrence.

We live in Clown World. However, I do not consider you a clown. I respect your opinion, and often agree with it. I appreciate your viewpoint. But on this matter, I hear you parroting the distortions and excesses of the "mainstream media" while offering no counterpoint that might explain the immense dissatisfaction felt by those who are ostensibly (and wrongly accused of being) the supporters and perpetrators of J6—namely the political Right.

As someone who is in many ways a part of the political Right, I explicitly disclaim any responsibility with regard to the J6 incidents, both for myself and for the political Right in general. In this, I directly disagree with you, based on your statement that "Our side screwed up royally on J6.  If we're gonna have problems with Antifa and BLM riots, and defend what happened on J6, then we're just as hypocritical as the folks who defend Antifa and BLM riots, but have problems with J6". Specifically, "our side" did not "screw up royally" (or in any other way). Some idiots who call themselves conservative screwed up royally. That is not on me or on the conservative movement in general. And yes, you absolutely must mention the evils of the Left, especially when they very directly contribute to the behaviors you are ascribing (wrongly, in my view) to the entire political Right.

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...