Also you don't get to call people morons anymore when you fear taking an IQ test.
187 Minutes
Posts
Total:
124
-->
@WyIted
I don't understand your issue with ball caps. It's odd.
It’s the MAGA MORON moniker. Like a pinwheel hat on a child.
Also you don't get to call people morons anymore when you fear taking an IQ test.
lol, how did your vote on banning people who encourage violence go?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
lol, how did your vote on banning people who encourage violence go?
You guys aren't bright. The second some right wing violence occurs, I can just repost and then the same people who vote against it will vote for it.
-->
@WyIted
Exactly. Sheep will always sheep to the newest bleat.
-->
@WyIted
What are children's Denise's?
Must be an American thing.
A bit like band guns.
Is that elastic bands?
Q. So why would certain people still vote for the Orange Clown Mr Trumpet?
A. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Dogs bark and sheep bleat.
-->
@WyIted
You guys aren't bright
Now that’s the same explanation we give for Trump winning in 2016
-->
@WyIted
I am telling you what leftists are foo. Do you deny there is a movement to allow kids to transition?
There's 300 million people in this country, there's always a movement out there in support of some crazy proposition.
Your original charge was that the left "wants to cut the penises off of children" which is an egregiously false statement as you worded it.
But even setting aside your intentionally dishonest framing, what you're claiming here is that the left is for children transitioning which the overwhelming majority of people left and right are against. What separates us if anything on this topic is that I along with most on the left actually do believe in the freedom right wingers love to pretend to care about, so I think decisions likes this are medical decisions best left up to the individual, their family (if we're talking about a minor) and their doctor.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So was that the goal? to make them admit it?
The goal is to see what arguments Trump defenders have, cause everytime I bring this up they tend to offer a tepid non sequitur before trying to deflect to something else. So far my presumption that no one has a serious defense to offer is proving correct.
-->
@Double_R
What separates us if anything on this topic is that I along with most on the left actually do believe in the freedom right wingers love to pretend to care about,
You mean when like leftist deep state actors were trying to ban free speech on social media platforms?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Left-tribe propagandists aren't too good at math:2:38 p.m - 1:25 p.m = 73 minutes
When I first learned of Trump's 2:38pm tweet it did make me wonder if I needed to adjust my assessment, but it doesn't take long to realize something wasn't right here.
First of all, he tells them to "be peaceful" after violence was well underway, which seems kind of silly on its own. But more importantly, he didn't even tell them to leave the Capitol. If he didn't want them there he would have said so and in fact would have said far more than that. As usual, Trump does just barely enough so that he could point to it later on as a defense even though it clearly wasn't enough at the time which everyone in real time knew.
It also didn't make sense because well after the rioting began he put out that tweet targeting Mike Pence, so he clearly didn't care about the violence then.
And then it all made sense when we would later learn that Trump didn't write that tweet and didn't want to send it. That was Dan Scavino who wrote it and a few other aids begging Trump to do something.
But beyond all of that, when I said he was missing in action I'm not talking about his social media. He's the president, he was in control of far more than his Twitter account. I'm talking about how he didn't make a single phone call, didn't talk to a single person involved in national defense. While the entire government is scrambling to figure out a response he just sits there watching TV. Do you have any response to that?
That does not matter to you because if it was zero minutes you would not change your determination of culpability
That's because his culpability is based on far more than his speech as I explained to you for weeks at a time. As I said in the OP, you do not need the 187 minutes to determine that he incited the attack, but the 187 minutes is what confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that this is what he wanted to happen. Up until that point he could have said "whoops my bad, I didn't think they were crazy enough to do it". Three hours later, that excuse is long gone.
as you have implied many times by dismissing the words "peaceful" in his ellipse speech.
This excuse never ceases to amuse me. You pick out one word of an 11,000 word speech and really think that's a rational basis to claim the message he was sending to them was that and not the other 10,999 words pointing to the opposite.
But following the assassination attempt the disingenuousness of this defense became that much more obvious. The charge against the left over the past few weeks is that the left is responsible because we said mean things about Trump.
Basically, if you say something that might make someone feel like the right thing to do is to commit violence, you are morally responsible for that violence when it occurs, even though we've been told for the past three years that Trump didn't literally tell them to attack and his literal words are all that matter. So forget that he told them to fight 20 times, and forget that the only logical conclusion from the central allegation he spent two months pushing is violence, the transcript of his speech didn't say "attack the Capitol", so he's not responsible.
-->
@WyIted
You mean when like leftist deep state actors were trying to ban free speech on social media platforms?
We believe in freedom. That includes the freedom of private companies to decide that they don't want their platforms being used to spread dangerous misinformation.
Notice how a rich billionaire decided to purchase the largest platform on earth and is now using it to amplify right wing propaganda while banning left wing speech he doesn't like. Do we approve of that? No, of course not. Is anyone on the left claiming this is a violation of our free speech? No, we're not that stupid. Elon can run "X" however he wants no matter how brazenly hypocritical and disgusting, the rest of us can decide whether to use the platform or not (I don't for that reason). That's how freedom works.
-->
@Double_R
The goal is to see what arguments Trump defenders have
Well I suppose you got the answer quite quickly - the answer being that when subjected to the proper sensory stimuli they will voluntarily remove the mask. What will you do with this information?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What will you do with this information?
"Do" with it? Nothing really, tack it onto my understanding of the world just as I do with any other information I come across.
This is just one person's viewpoint (yours) though, so I take that for what it is. Others will suggest it's wrong like ILP5 implied, but notably he didn't even bother to address the OP and/or offer an explanation which only plays further into the point.
-->
@Double_R
I would have expected your next step based on your current approach to be making a thread asking why we shouldn't do democracy.
-->
@Double_R
Left-tribe propagandists aren't too good at math:2:38 p.m - 1:25 p.m = 73 minutesWhen I first learned of Trump's 2:38pm tweet it did make me wonder if I needed to adjust my assessment, but it doesn't take long to realize something wasn't right here.
lol, there is no way he could say "peaceful" more than once in the same day huh?
First of all, he tells them to "be peaceful" after violence was well underway, which seems kind of silly on its own.
"be extra peaceful" rofl
But more importantly, he didn't even tell them to leave the Capitol.
Maybe you should go back in time to write a speech for him.
If he didn't want them there he would have said so
I wanted them to be there so of course I don't care if Trump wanted them to be there, I was just pointing out that you are using false numbers.
It also didn't make sense because well after the rioting began he put out that tweet targeting Mike Pence, so he clearly didn't care about the violence then.
Accusing Pence of failure does not speak to his opinion about violence.
And then it all made sense when we would later learn that Trump didn't write that tweet and didn't want to send it. That was Dan Scavino who wrote it and a few other aids begging Trump to do something.
I trust nothing out of the fake trial known as the Jan 6 hearings. Before you spout your automatic "conspiracy theory nutjob you should trust everything the government says or causes to be extorted from people", remember you asked (people like) me.
He's the president, he was in control of far more than his Twitter account. I'm talking about how he didn't make a single phone call, didn't talk to a single person involved in national defense.
He did that before the protest started. Nobody cared because they were more afraid of his DoD than the protestors. That might be why Pelosi admitted responsibility.
While the entire government is scrambling to figure out a response he just sits there watching TV. Do you have any response to that?
I already gave my commentary. He should have acted long before that so that there was nothing to riot about.
He doesn't have a coherent excuse because he was fence sitting. To me he failed his duty by allowing the constitution to be violated up to that point. To left tribers he failed his duty by allowing the mob to interfere (although whether they would have done more than yell is unknown since congress fled) what they believed to be a legitimate constitutional process.
Sitting and doing nothing during that time signified nothing beyond that he had no plans for a coup, did not expect a riot, did not know how he could stop one.
In fact there was no way to stop it without killing (more) protestors. When one man (who was a political prisoners, Jacob Chansley) read to the crowd that Trump wanted them to go home, did they leave? No, they scoffed.
"We're staying"
"We will abide, but we want to be heard, this is the people's house"
You don't understand what happened that day and you never will so long as you persist in the delusion that MAGA is simply a cult of personality.
This excuse never ceases to amuse me.
I have ceased to be interested in running around in a circle because you refuse to concede when you lose a point. I will not be baited into rehashes. You asked a question, you have answers. The end.
The charge against the left over the past few weeks is that the left is responsible because we said mean things about Trump.
If you want people to stop having absurd standards, make them live up to the standards they demand of others. Some of these events occurred before others.
Nuking Nagasaki before Pearl Harbor is a lot different than nuking Nagasaki after Pearl Harbor.
You mean when like leftist deep state actors were trying to ban free speech on social media platforms?We believe in freedom. That includes the freedom of private companies to decide that they don't want their platforms being used to spread dangerous misinformation.
... and the "freedom" for FBI agents to form political officer corps in those "private" companies and coordinate censorship lists and agendas with the federal government (thereby making the 'private' company an agent of the federal government).
-->
@WyIted
You mean when like leftist deep state actors were trying to ban free speech on social media platforms?
By free speech, you mean lies, right?
Do liars have a right to free speech? MAGA MORONS think so.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Do liars have a right to free speech
Free speech would also mean speech that the government considers lies. Read the book 1984
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First of all, he tells them to "be peaceful" after violence was well underway, which seems kind of silly on its own."be extra peaceful" rofl
No, he could have told them clearly and unequivocally so that no doubt was left (you know, like he does when he talks about how awful the left is) that he didn't want violence and wanted them to leave.
Telling a crowd to "be peaceful" after they have already gotten violent is silly. It's like a teacher walking up to two students throwing fists at each other and saying "be nice". It's a meaningless half baked attempt to look like you're actually doing something when everyone knows you're not. That's why the rioters looked confused when they looked at the tweet, they didn't know what to make of it so they just kept on marching because they felt that what they were doing was right (as in what Trump really wanted), and their instincts were correct because everything I just said is common sense.
Accusing Pence of failure does not speak to his opinion about violence.
It absolutely does when the tweet was written while the violence was on going.
The crowd he just finished speaking to and just finished telling that they were all counting on Mike Pence to deliver for them otherwise they "weren't going to have a country anymore" is in the process of beating their way past police barricades after Mike Pence failed to save the country and your response is to tweet about how Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done?
I really don't know why this is so complicated for you. If the crowd is rioting, they're pissed. If they're pissed, don't rile them up further. And if you do, then clearly you see them as acting in accordance with what you want. This is common sense.
When I first learned of Trump's 2:38pm tweet it did make me wonder if I needed to adjust my assessment, but it doesn't take long to realize something wasn't right here.lol, there is no way he could say "peaceful" more than once in the same day huh?
Again, you love to pretend he said "peaceful" in a vacuum. As if the prior two months didn't happen. As if the rest of the 11,000 words he uttered he didn't actually utter. As if the hang Mike Pence *wink wink* tweet wasn't also sent. I can see why though, because pretending that everything else which happened didn't actually happen is the only argument you have.
There is no world in which a person who does not want violence spends 98% of his words and his actions inciting violence, and two percent of it telling people to 'be nice'. There absolutely is a world in which someone who wants violence makes his point clear but them throws in a few false exculpatories so that cultists like yourself will pull them up after the fact and use it to backwards rationalize his innocence. This is common sense.
I'm talking about how he didn't make a single phone call, didn't talk to a single person involved in national defense.He did that before the protest started.
Irrelevant deflection. Even if we were to believe the lie that he tried to secure the Capitol beforehand (which cuts entirely against the argument that he never expected violence) and that protection was rejected, that is absolutely no excuse to sit on your hands as the violence breaks out.
Imagine I offer my wife a life vest before getting in the water and she refuses, then I sit and watch her struggle till she drowns to death. Was my offer beforehand an excuse? Of course not. This is common sense.
He doesn't have a coherent excuse because he was fence sitting.
So after offering all of these incoherent defenses you agree with me?
Sitting and doing nothing during that time signified nothing beyond that he had no plans for a coup
During the time the rioters took over and Congress was in hiding multiple members received phone calls urging them to use the delay as further reason to stop the certification and send it back to the states. That was the plan from the start and the actions of his attorney make that clear.
And then it all made sense when we would later learn that Trump didn't write that tweet and didn't want to send it. That was Dan Scavino who wrote it and a few other aids begging Trump to do something.I trust nothing out of the fake trial known as the Jan 6 hearings.
I know, it's how conspiracy theorists maintain their psychosis. Just hand waive away any piece of evidence that contradicts the conspiracy, that way all that's left is evidence for the conspiracy.
-->
@Double_R
Telling a crowd to "be peaceful" after they have already gotten violent is silly.
...but telling them to go home is supposed to work?
Accusing Pence of failure does not speak to his opinion about violence.It absolutely does when the tweet was written while the violence was on going.
So anyone who talked about police brutality,racism, gun control, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc... during the entire summer of love was endorsing the violence?
I really don't know why this is so complicated for you. If the crowd is rioting, they're pissed. If they're pissed, don't rile them up further. And if you do, then clearly you see them as acting in accordance with what you want. This is common sense.
but not a common principle, and until the left-tribe lives by the standards they would impose on others there will be no reconciliation, only escalation.
There is no world in which a person who does not want violence spends 98% of his words and his actions inciting violence
There is no world where making accusations of injustice and fraud don't inspire violence.
Politics is by nature inspiration for violence. The left tribe and free speech could not survive the application of your theory of incitement, which along with being unsupported by any reasoned argument makes it totally uninteresting to me.
There is a difference between inspiration and advocacy, and the difference is made clear by words like "peacefully" even if they are said only once they are explicit calls for non-violence with no explicit calls for violence to stand against them.
Contrast with Joe Biden saying he would beat someone up behind a gym and other left-tribers saying Trump needs to be assassinated by "putting a bullet in him".
Even if we were to believe the lie that he tried to secure the Capitol beforehand
The only time it could be secured....
which cuts entirely against the argument that he never expected violence
You always expect a few crazies. No one expected what happened, if the left-tribe in control of the city and capitol police did expect the level of aggression that happened then they let it happen on purpose, which is actually a fairly popular conspiracy theory.
that is absolutely no excuse to sit on your hands as the violence breaks out.
Maybe for superman, but when you're an old man whose secret service refused to let you go to the scene there is not much you can do. I suppose he could have tried to order a napalm strike but otherwise there was nothing that could be done.
Imagine I offer my wife a life vest before getting in the water and she refuses, then I sit and watch her struggle till she drowns to death.
More like you offer a vaccine and she refuses, then you sit and watch her struggle until death because vaccines and non-lethal security forces only work preemptively.
There are no secret alien teleportation beams. There was no secret battalion of personal guard hiding under the national monument Trump could have sent in. You needed forces present or standing by to react.
There were plenty of security people and national guard there already, if they were willing to shoot they could have mown down everyone. They waited until they had stronger chemical weapons because they didn't want to start a civil war. Or maybe because it was a false flag. You decide. Either way, they were not waiting for Trump's order they were not under his command.
He doesn't have a coherent excuse because he was fence sitting.So after offering all of these incoherent defenses you agree with me?
No I don't agree with you. You (claim to) see no excuse for him not magically stopping a riot. I see no excuse for him half-assing his strategy and relying on naive men.
His theoretical model of other people's behavior was flawed, almost as flawed as the left-tribe leadership if they truly were acting in good faith and thought they were preventing a riot with their preparations and/or discouraging violence with their threats and censorship.
Sitting and doing nothing during that time signified nothing beyond that he had no plans for a coupDuring the time the rioters took over and Congress was in hiding multiple members received phone calls urging them to use the delay as further reason to stop the certification and send it back to the states. That was the plan from the start and the actions of his attorney make that clear.
lol <- too pathetically silly to take seriously laugh
And then it all made sense when we would later learn that Trump didn't write that tweet and didn't want to send it. That was Dan Scavino who wrote it and a few other aids begging Trump to do something.I trust nothing out of the fake trial known as the Jan 6 hearings.I know, it's how conspiracy theorists maintain their psychosis. Just hand waive away any piece of evidence that contradicts the conspiracy, that way all that's left is evidence for the conspiracy.
Like the wall between the back seat and the driver's seat in the presidential vehicle. Jan 6 committee wasn't too interested in that fact. Unfortunately physical objects can't be coerced into non-existence with the threat of jail-time.
-->
@WyIted
Free speech would also mean speech that the government considers lies.
There is no free speech for lies and misinformation or alternative realities or conspiracy theories
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
There is no free speech for lies and misinformation or alternative realities or conspiracy theories
I get it. Only government approved truth is free speech. Great ideal. They should also burn books with "lies" and deplatform and imprison "liars". I agree with you
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Who is in charge of determining what are lies and misinformation? The govt, the news media?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Who is in charge of determining what are lies and misinformation? The govt, the news media?
-->
@sadolite
If you recall, there was going to be a Disinformation Governance Board headed by a Nina Jankowicz a couple years ago to answer those very questions and concerns. But after much criticism, controversy, and a disturbing sense that the novel “1984” was getting too real, the whole idea was canned…
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
...but telling them to go home is supposed to work?
It literally did. Many of the rioters started clearing out as soon as he sent that video.
You keep arguing that sending any kind of communication to them was futile because they wouldn't have listened, but when I make the point that he did nothing for 3 hours your immediate response was to jump to his Twitter post to say he did. So which side of the fence is it?
which cuts entirely against the argument that he never expected violenceYou always expect a few crazies.
You don't send in 10,000 troops to deal with a few crazies. Again, if Trump was offering these troops it's only because he recognized a very real threat of violence on a massive scale. You can't have it both ways. He either expected it, in which case his decision to proceed the way he did was inexcusable (from the standpoint of anyone who doesn't want violence), or he didn't in which case this talking point is a lie. Pick one.
There is a difference between inspiration and advocacy, and the difference is made clear by words like "peacefully" even if they are said only once they are explicit calls for non-violence with no explicit calls for violence to stand against them.
We don't assess someone's intentions and/or motivations merely by picking out the things they say explicitly, everyone over the age of 8 knows this. We look at their actions, we look at the totality of their words, and we put two and two together. When someone speaks 11,000 words with violent underdones, in a context where violence is the only possible answer to the problem he spent the prior two months telling you is very real, you don't throw it all away because he used the word peaceful once in the middle of that speech with no emphasis whatsoever.
You've got a hammer on one side of the scale and a feather on the other, and you're telling me the feather weighs more. That's absurd.
You (claim to) see no excuse for him not magically stopping a riot.
No, I see no excuse for him doing absolutely nothing to stop it while instead watching it on TV for those three hours.
It's insane haw the same crowd that spent the past 4 years attacking Joe Biden for being weak and boasting about how strong Donald Trump is claiming that with Trump in the White House there's no way Ukraine would have ever been attacked, also believe that when the US Capitol right down the street was under attack there is just nothing he could do to stop it.
But this debate isn't about how effectively Trump could have stopped the attack, it's about what his purposeful inaction says about him and how that is not an unquestionable disqualification for office. To that all you've offered are whataboutisms and moving of the goal posts, because there is nothing else you could possibly offer. The man is manifestly unfit for office, those 187 minutes proves that.
-->
@Greyparrot
That's what the 2025 outrage is all about
You mean Orange Rage, Orange Greyparrot.
Jan 6th and all of Orange Trumpet and Make America White Again { MAWA } is about.
Jan 6th and all of Orange Trumpet and Make America White Again { MAWA } is about.
Nation against nation is not going to work. Capitalism is not fixing this lack of unified humanity, to not annihilate ourselves in next 50 years or so.
Canada is burning again, and red Trumpet/MAWA is not the best way forward. The blue alternative is Kamala and VP.
False narrative vs much less false narrative.
Gaza is burning.
Humanity unite, via Meta-space mind over matter, or bust. Perhaps too late already because of the PPM of greenhouse gases already in atmosphere. I dunno.
-->
@ebuc
My grocery bill is burning in 2024
Make
Affordable
Groceries
Again
-->
@ebuc
Perhaps too late already because of the PPM of greenhouse gases already in atmosphere. I dunno.
We had trees and animals 10 times larger when we had 2000 ppm CO2
Make animals great again.
-->
@Greyparrot
My grocery bill is burning in 2024
I understand the vote your wallet concept. Been their done that and still do, to whatever degree.
The primary differrence between red - Orange/MAWA Rage and blue freedom of democracy, is the degree of false narrative being espoused.
Comparing your personal burning ' grocery bill ' to annihilation of humanity via Boreal Forests potential releases of smoke ---block out sun-- and great increase PPM value of greenhouse gases appears to me as very narrow minded.
After Mt. Pinatuba { Phillipines volcano } its ash plume blocked enough infra-red radiation to drop the Earths temperature by 1 degree for that following year
Those who truly want to help their grocery bill and save humanity from extinction need the following:
1} truthful education, not a false narrative,
1} truthful education, not a false narrative,
2} reduce population growth, as,
3} a plan for future of humanity is being developed ---maybe General Artificial Intelligence { GAI } can assimilate enough relevant data into a basic plan, to significantly motivate a move by humanity towards a unification { One World or bust Future } ---.