4 ms·

I'm not really a fan. But I must say, he asked for a protest, not for them to storm the Capital. He probably wanted to stir it up, but never thought it would

I'm not really a fan. But I must say, he asked for a protest, not for them to storm the Capital. He probably wanted to stir it up, but never thought it would go that far. I have not seen any explicit tweets where he asked for that. The other thing I want to mention (in demonstrating the two standards) is that the dem leadership cheered on protests in the summer with battle like language which turned into far larger and more consequential riots that somehow we dont talk about anymore. Many lost their livelihoods and some their lives. These went on for months, not 6 hours. Those riots by the way were encouraged by dem leadership but somehow have not been penalized on twitter or even critiqued. The unlevel playing field that essentially a cartel is laying out which we see time and time again is what people are getting fed up with and I can sympathize. mullingitover - You might be correct that the claims were hyperbole. But I don't see a difference between the two sides in falsely justifying a protest that turned into a riot. For instance, the police brutality is not acceptable (and the imagery was terrible), but it was also mostly an astroturf and amplification of reality before an election to rally voters when you actually look at the FBI statistics of racial deaths in the hands of police. Both sides encouraged protests with battle like language. They both turned into destructive riots. One side was penalized.

mullingitover 6y ago
> But I must say, he asked for a protest, not for them to storm the Capital He's not completely stupid, at least in the short term. I'll give him that. The fact is, however, that he made breathtaking, wholly unfounded claims of a vast conspiracy that if you believed them would lead you to believe that a revolution was in order and completely appropriate. Then he turned them loose on the Capitol.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  You're just making assertions and hoping that the zeitgeist continues to agree with you. It's easy for the winning side to trot out a bunch of people that support their position (and if you try suggesting R's are on the same side as Trump supporters, then you're more divorced from reality than I feared). Trump supporters don't care. They want specific concerns addressed. And frankly, they should be. Every election in a bona fide democracy should be characterized by the winning side steel manning the losing side's objections and addressing them one-by-one until the fraction of the population continuing to object is minuscule enough to ignore. That didn't happen. Instead objectors got people they didn't trust trotted out before them declaring "There's NO evidence of election fraud" (demonstrably false, there's evidence of election fraud in every election), stonewalling, and running out the clock. They should have steel-manned and addressed in a very public and forthcoming, unspun manner the more compelling arguments presented. Matt Braynard's [1] work, for example, should have been litigated to hell and back. Undergoing these challenges is critical to maintaining democracy, but the left was hell-bent on painting a narrative that pursuing election transparency in 2020 (not 2016, mind you; they had quite a different take then when they were mucking with the electoral college themselves [2]) was somehow antidemocratic because all questions had been settled by the people only they were permitted to declare trustworthy. So what we have now is a huge fraction of the population that feel the election has been stolen: "Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election, but just as many Democrats (61%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Among unaffiliateds, 29% feel it’s a stolen election; 45% do not." [3] I don't have much of a dog in this fight. I'm about as pure a libertarian/ancap as you can find. I leaned slightly Trump because I despise war, but I would have been just as happy with Biden and a republican senate. I'm telling you with open eyes (the same eyes I use to attempt to discredit the Q and Lin Wood madness on the right) that you have bought into a false narrative sold to you by the leftist media. You are nowhere in the vicinity of "woke". You are stuck in a bubble that decries other bubbles and you don't even realize it. Worse, it's the most powerful bubble that is causing the most damage to society. It is YOUR bubble that is causing the most damage to democracy in this country. [1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_data_analytics_have_paid_off.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_... [2] https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/17/how-democrats-attempted-a-2016-electoral-college-coup/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/17/how-democrats-attempt... [3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/61_think_trump_should_concede_to_biden https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ele...
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > So what we have now is a huge fraction of the population that feel the election has been stolen Ask yourself, who led these people to believe this.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      I've been listening to both sides and I dont even think people understand where this stems from and why some people want answers. Phil Waldron's testimony is one of them https://youtu.be/rri6flxaXww?t=4924 https://youtu.be/rri6flxaXww?t=4924
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        I'm not watching any more debunked conspiracy theories, thanks. They've had their numerous days in court.
        trident5000 6y ago
        And here is the issue and why the sides cannot understand whats going on.
        mullingitover 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
        tetrometal 6y ago
        You sure about that? How many cases were thrown out on their merits vs. procedural grounds?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    There is no reason whatsoever to believe this election was stolen beyond unverified fabricated nonsense spread by the loser and his cronies and amplified by social media. Each state has measures in place to ensure a fair election takes place including, canvassing, the recourse of requesting a recount or pursuing litigation. All these things already happened and it was proven over and over that there was no substantial proof of widespread fraud. If your fellow citizens cannot discern the difference between social media and reality then this does not create an obligation for the opposing side that scales upwards towards infinity with their level of insanity. Its deeply ironic that before the election around 2/3 of republicans believed our elections were free and fair and now instead of concluding that their objections are grounded in bad faith you believe that the democrats didn't do enough to prove to their opponents that they didn't cheat. You have reversed the burden of proof and I reject your assertion. The burden of proof always lies with he would would assert a crime has been done not upon the accused to prove a negative. The alternative is utter nonsense. Incidentally if we look at an actual source https://morningconsult.com/form/tracking-voter-trust-in-elections/ https://morningconsult.com/form/tracking-voter-trust-in-elec... 10% of democrats believe we didn't have a fair election, 44% of independents, and a whopping 78% of republicans. On the overall ~2/3 of Americans trust our election was free and fair. The 1/3 will more or less be convinced by nothing as their feelings aren't based on reality. These people will by and large just have to go through the next 4-16 years of Democratic control thinking the Democrats, the women, and the minorities are stealing their country.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Anyway, my point here is not to defend trump. Just to point out that both sides caused riots over the past 6 months with leaders egging them on and 1 side was penalized.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    Show me where both sides' leaders egged on rioters.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Id say the biggest thing was the void of dem leadership even acknowledging the riots. I dont have a rolodex of statements but the theme was encouragement of the protests despite them turning into riots time and time again. Thats specifically the reason they even went on for an entire summer. Can look to twitter trends which were never/rarely censored. Flip side is "walkaway" is not even allowed. Perhaps one example is AOC saying "protests are made to make people uncomfortable" If T said something like that after Jan 6 what would the reaction have been? Any sober person sees the double standard. Dont fight me here I'm just pointing out why so many people are pissed.
    - tetrometal 6y ago
      Kamala Harris directly funded the defenses of violent rioters: https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-criminals-kamala-harris-helped-bail-out-of-jail/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-crimin... It is a tried-and-true tactic of the left to provide legal services to rioters to embolden them in their terrorism.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Take your fine people on both sides argument somewhere else. One side acknowledged that people had a legitimate reason to protest cops offing black people while specifically discouraging rioting. Another side told people that their country was being stolen from them and only they could stop it before telling them to go to the capital.
- guscost 6y ago
  The “vast conspiracy” in this case is as plain as day, the furthest thing from unfounded. It is often sensationalized as “the deep state” but a more objective name is “institutionalized corruption”. It is EVERYWHERE in this country, and if you don’t see it by now, you are probably never gonna see it.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Vast electoral interference conspiracies are an old tactic at this point. Impeachment is generally a more favoured response than revolution. Neither the conspiracy nor the resolution make sense, but that isn't a big deal in politics. It is a stupid conspiracy, the gap in the popular vote is overwhelming and Trump was only ever going to get in on electoral college technicalities. But this meme that Trump is the first one to launch serious claims at the electoral system is misinformation. This is a direct mimic of the Democrat response to 2016.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > This is a direct mimic of the Democrat response to 2016. I recall some arguments in Congress, but to call it a 'direct mimic' is complete nonsense. The election was conceded immediately by the Clinton campaign as soon as it was called by the networks.
design-material 6y ago
If you're attempting to equate the contexts of systemic, on-going race-based manslaughter to someone fabricating a conspiracy theory (while offering no evidence, threatening other elected officials, rallying supporters, etc) then that is - purely in an academic sense - stupid.
- mc32 6y ago
  If you look at per-police interaction statistics the narrative changes. All kinds of people die during interactions with police. Now, what we can claim is that historical injustices have led to increased ratios of police interaction by different populations. That’s true. However, per interaction, the police are not more likely to be fatal to one group vs another. That’s a misrepresentation. See: Simpson’s Paradox. Given this it should behoove media and leaders to institute root changes that improve the “interaction” frequency.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    What does the percentage of fatalities per interaction have to do with justice? For the same given percentage, they could all be people who were genuine threats, or all people reaching for their wallets in their own garage. The metric is not measuring what matters.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Okay. Well I just look at the numbers/statistics. What can I say I'm a numbers guy. Can call that stupid I suppose.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  I would invite you to expand your perspective on the "race-based" manslaughter [1] and "conspiracy theory" [2]. [1] https://youtu.be/1C2HrbQTzwk?t=107 https://youtu.be/1C2HrbQTzwk?t=107 [2] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_data_analytics_have_paid_off.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_...

mullingitover 6y ago

> But I must say, he asked for a protest, not for them to storm the Capital He's not completely stupid, at least in the short term. I'll give him that. The fact is, however, that he made breathtaking, wholly unfounded claims of a vast conspiracy that if you believed them would lead you to believe that a revolution was in order and completely appropriate. Then he turned them loose on the Capitol.

tetrometal 6y ago
You're just making assertions and hoping that the zeitgeist continues to agree with you. It's easy for the winning side to trot out a bunch of people that support their position (and if you try suggesting R's are on the same side as Trump supporters, then you're more divorced from reality than I feared). Trump supporters don't care. They want specific concerns addressed. And frankly, they should be. Every election in a bona fide democracy should be characterized by the winning side steel manning the losing side's objections and addressing them one-by-one until the fraction of the population continuing to object is minuscule enough to ignore. That didn't happen. Instead objectors got people they didn't trust trotted out before them declaring "There's NO evidence of election fraud" (demonstrably false, there's evidence of election fraud in every election), stonewalling, and running out the clock. They should have steel-manned and addressed in a very public and forthcoming, unspun manner the more compelling arguments presented. Matt Braynard's [1] work, for example, should have been litigated to hell and back. Undergoing these challenges is critical to maintaining democracy, but the left was hell-bent on painting a narrative that pursuing election transparency in 2020 (not 2016, mind you; they had quite a different take then when they were mucking with the electoral college themselves [2]) was somehow antidemocratic because all questions had been settled by the people only they were permitted to declare trustworthy. So what we have now is a huge fraction of the population that feel the election has been stolen: "Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election, but just as many Democrats (61%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Among unaffiliateds, 29% feel it’s a stolen election; 45% do not." [3] I don't have much of a dog in this fight. I'm about as pure a libertarian/ancap as you can find. I leaned slightly Trump because I despise war, but I would have been just as happy with Biden and a republican senate. I'm telling you with open eyes (the same eyes I use to attempt to discredit the Q and Lin Wood madness on the right) that you have bought into a false narrative sold to you by the leftist media. You are nowhere in the vicinity of "woke". You are stuck in a bubble that decries other bubbles and you don't even realize it. Worse, it's the most powerful bubble that is causing the most damage to society. It is YOUR bubble that is causing the most damage to democracy in this country. [1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_data_analytics_have_paid_off.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_... [2] https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/17/how-democrats-attempted-a-2016-electoral-college-coup/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/17/how-democrats-attempt... [3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/61_think_trump_should_concede_to_biden https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ele...
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > So what we have now is a huge fraction of the population that feel the election has been stolen Ask yourself, who led these people to believe this.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    I've been listening to both sides and I dont even think people understand where this stems from and why some people want answers. Phil Waldron's testimony is one of them https://youtu.be/rri6flxaXww?t=4924 https://youtu.be/rri6flxaXww?t=4924
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      I'm not watching any more debunked conspiracy theories, thanks. They've had their numerous days in court.
      - trident5000 6y ago
        And here is the issue and why the sides cannot understand whats going on.
        mullingitover 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
      - tetrometal 6y ago
        You sure about that? How many cases were thrown out on their merits vs. procedural grounds?
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  There is no reason whatsoever to believe this election was stolen beyond unverified fabricated nonsense spread by the loser and his cronies and amplified by social media. Each state has measures in place to ensure a fair election takes place including, canvassing, the recourse of requesting a recount or pursuing litigation. All these things already happened and it was proven over and over that there was no substantial proof of widespread fraud. If your fellow citizens cannot discern the difference between social media and reality then this does not create an obligation for the opposing side that scales upwards towards infinity with their level of insanity. Its deeply ironic that before the election around 2/3 of republicans believed our elections were free and fair and now instead of concluding that their objections are grounded in bad faith you believe that the democrats didn't do enough to prove to their opponents that they didn't cheat. You have reversed the burden of proof and I reject your assertion. The burden of proof always lies with he would would assert a crime has been done not upon the accused to prove a negative. The alternative is utter nonsense. Incidentally if we look at an actual source https://morningconsult.com/form/tracking-voter-trust-in-elections/ https://morningconsult.com/form/tracking-voter-trust-in-elec... 10% of democrats believe we didn't have a fair election, 44% of independents, and a whopping 78% of republicans. On the overall ~2/3 of Americans trust our election was free and fair. The 1/3 will more or less be convinced by nothing as their feelings aren't based on reality. These people will by and large just have to go through the next 4-16 years of Democratic control thinking the Democrats, the women, and the minorities are stealing their country.
trident5000 6y ago
Anyway, my point here is not to defend trump. Just to point out that both sides caused riots over the past 6 months with leaders egging them on and 1 side was penalized.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Show me where both sides' leaders egged on rioters.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Id say the biggest thing was the void of dem leadership even acknowledging the riots. I dont have a rolodex of statements but the theme was encouragement of the protests despite them turning into riots time and time again. Thats specifically the reason they even went on for an entire summer. Can look to twitter trends which were never/rarely censored. Flip side is "walkaway" is not even allowed. Perhaps one example is AOC saying "protests are made to make people uncomfortable" If T said something like that after Jan 6 what would the reaction have been? Any sober person sees the double standard. Dont fight me here I'm just pointing out why so many people are pissed.
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    Kamala Harris directly funded the defenses of violent rioters: https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-criminals-kamala-harris-helped-bail-out-of-jail/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-crimin... It is a tried-and-true tactic of the left to provide legal services to rioters to embolden them in their terrorism.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Take your fine people on both sides argument somewhere else. One side acknowledged that people had a legitimate reason to protest cops offing black people while specifically discouraging rioting. Another side told people that their country was being stolen from them and only they could stop it before telling them to go to the capital.
guscost 6y ago
The “vast conspiracy” in this case is as plain as day, the furthest thing from unfounded. It is often sensationalized as “the deep state” but a more objective name is “institutionalized corruption”. It is EVERYWHERE in this country, and if you don’t see it by now, you are probably never gonna see it.
roenxi 6y ago
Vast electoral interference conspiracies are an old tactic at this point. Impeachment is generally a more favoured response than revolution. Neither the conspiracy nor the resolution make sense, but that isn't a big deal in politics. It is a stupid conspiracy, the gap in the popular vote is overwhelming and Trump was only ever going to get in on electoral college technicalities. But this meme that Trump is the first one to launch serious claims at the electoral system is misinformation. This is a direct mimic of the Democrat response to 2016.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > This is a direct mimic of the Democrat response to 2016. I recall some arguments in Congress, but to call it a 'direct mimic' is complete nonsense. The election was conceded immediately by the Clinton campaign as soon as it was called by the networks.

design-material 6y ago

If you're attempting to equate the contexts of systemic, on-going race-based manslaughter to someone fabricating a conspiracy theory (while offering no evidence, threatening other elected officials, rallying supporters, etc) then that is - purely in an academic sense - stupid.

mc32 6y ago
If you look at per-police interaction statistics the narrative changes. All kinds of people die during interactions with police. Now, what we can claim is that historical injustices have led to increased ratios of police interaction by different populations. That’s true. However, per interaction, the police are not more likely to be fatal to one group vs another. That’s a misrepresentation. See: Simpson’s Paradox. Given this it should behoove media and leaders to institute root changes that improve the “interaction” frequency.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  What does the percentage of fatalities per interaction have to do with justice? For the same given percentage, they could all be people who were genuine threats, or all people reaching for their wallets in their own garage. The metric is not measuring what matters.
trident5000 6y ago
Okay. Well I just look at the numbers/statistics. What can I say I'm a numbers guy. Can call that stupid I suppose.
tetrometal 6y ago
I would invite you to expand your perspective on the "race-based" manslaughter [1] and "conspiracy theory" [2]. [1] https://youtu.be/1C2HrbQTzwk?t=107 https://youtu.be/1C2HrbQTzwk?t=107 [2] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_data_analytics_have_paid_off.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_...