4 ms·

>The mob's purpose in the the plan devised by Eastman and enacted by Trump [1] was to serve as a distraction / excuse for Mike Pence to launch a contingent elec

by 99_00 3y ago

>The mob's purpose in the the plan devised by Eastman and enacted by Trump [1] was to serve as a distraction / excuse for Mike Pence to launch a contingent election with fake electors who would certify Trump as the victor, thereby terminating our democracy and ending the American experiment. Your source doesn't back up that statement.

heroprotagonist 3y ago
The 'source' in this is the "House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack". It's hard to get more authoritative.. What isn't backed up by the source? The purpose of the mob? Accepting the government investigation reports, the fake elector plot was real. They didn't _need_ a mob to attack to push Pence into enacting it. It would have just told their story better afterwards. Optically, if you're going to steal an election by changing which electors count, after putting your own electors in as replacements, then having a mob attack the capital demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy is a _lot_ better optics than just enacting the plan without any kind of justification.
- 99_00 3y ago
  >What isn't backed up by the source? The purpose of the mob? Yes. >Optically, if you're going to steal an election by changing which electors count, after putting your own electors in as replacements, then having a mob attack the capital demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy is a _lot_ better optics than just enacting the plan without any kind of justification. You're justifying your speculation by saying it is plausible. That doesn't change that it's speculation. It's fine for you to speculate. I was confused because you were mixing speculation with fact in the same sentence and providing a source.
  - heroprotagonist 3y ago
    Speculation? Not really. It is beyond reasonable conjecture as a motivation for the mob orchestration at this point. And the much more important findings around the fake elector plot are very concrete. Arguing the burden of proof on motivation for the mob orchestration is a distraction. The mob was showy and got a lot of attention, sure. But everything happening in the background has been proven beyond any doubt by now. And it was _much_ more important. This proof is not dependent on the mob attack having occurred. The facts would be the same if the mob attack had never happened. Ignore the mob attack entirely, regardless of motivation or spontaneity, and it doesn't change anything. Look, I guess it's going to be another one of those years. Our brains put these bias filters in place for their own protection. But they're horribly exploited. They're going to keep getting exploited, and we'll keep seeing attempts to build on gains from past exploitation. It's really hard, but try to work past it.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > The 'source' in this is the "House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack". It's hard to get more authoritative.. "Authoritative" is an interesting term...does it imply (and guarantee) accuracy of claims? > Accepting the government investigation reports, the fake elector plot was real. To what degree was it "real"? And does "real" mean "objectively true"? > demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy Row, row, row your boat...

by 99_00 3y ago

heroprotagonist 3y ago

The 'source' in this is the "House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack". It's hard to get more authoritative.. What isn't backed up by the source? The purpose of the mob? Accepting the government investigation reports, the fake elector plot was real. They didn't _need_ a mob to attack to push Pence into enacting it. It would have just told their story better afterwards. Optically, if you're going to steal an election by changing which electors count, after putting your own electors in as replacements, then having a mob attack the capital demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy is a _lot_ better optics than just enacting the plan without any kind of justification.

99_00 3y ago
>What isn't backed up by the source? The purpose of the mob? Yes. >Optically, if you're going to steal an election by changing which electors count, after putting your own electors in as replacements, then having a mob attack the capital demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy is a _lot_ better optics than just enacting the plan without any kind of justification. You're justifying your speculation by saying it is plausible. That doesn't change that it's speculation. It's fine for you to speculate. I was confused because you were mixing speculation with fact in the same sentence and providing a source.
- heroprotagonist 3y ago
  Speculation? Not really. It is beyond reasonable conjecture as a motivation for the mob orchestration at this point. And the much more important findings around the fake elector plot are very concrete. Arguing the burden of proof on motivation for the mob orchestration is a distraction. The mob was showy and got a lot of attention, sure. But everything happening in the background has been proven beyond any doubt by now. And it was _much_ more important. This proof is not dependent on the mob attack having occurred. The facts would be the same if the mob attack had never happened. Ignore the mob attack entirely, regardless of motivation or spontaneity, and it doesn't change anything. Look, I guess it's going to be another one of those years. Our brains put these bias filters in place for their own protection. But they're horribly exploited. They're going to keep getting exploited, and we'll keep seeing attempts to build on gains from past exploitation. It's really hard, but try to work past it.
mistermann 3y ago
> The 'source' in this is the "House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack". It's hard to get more authoritative.. "Authoritative" is an interesting term...does it imply (and guarantee) accuracy of claims? > Accepting the government investigation reports, the fake elector plot was real. To what degree was it "real"? And does "real" mean "objectively true"? > demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy Row, row, row your boat...