187 Minutes

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 124
Topic's author
#121
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,971
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The charge that the police are.... [bla bla bla]
= "It's not a lie so it's fine if it inspires violence"
I never said it was fine, I said it wasn't the same. A claim you have yet to provide any meaningful response to, the above being the latest example.



(I know you like to pretend these things don't happen, but that is your point dying horribly, screaming for someone to save it)
I never suggested these things didn't happen, you would know that if you've ever paid attention to a thing I've said.

What I've argued repeatedly and will continue to do at length if necessary is a that they aren't remotely similar. They all took place in an entirely different context first off all, and the point every single one of them was making was that Trump didn't win the right way, none of them claimed he didn't actually win.

To confuse those two things is, as Bill Maher likes to say, like someone looking at an elephant and a mouse and can't tell which one is bigger.

Define the belief of the Trump deranged in a single statement:
The only variable is Trump.
It's a literal fact. The only time in history we've ever had a president unequivocally claim the election was stolen is the only time we've ever had a situation where half the country believes the election was stolen. That's not a coincidence and the reason why is common sense. It's called the bully pulpit for a reason.
#122
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I said it wasn't the same
It's close enough to make your pearl clutching a double standard.





(I know you like to pretend these things don't happen, but that is your point dying horribly, screaming for someone to save it)
I never suggested these things didn't happen
"these things" being your arguments being debunked....


They all took place in an entirely different context first off all... [bla bla bla]
You said:

It used to be the case that the loser concedes and everyone  moves on.
False


none of them claimed he didn't actually win.
False


The only time in history we've ever had a president unequivocally claim the election was stolen
Sitting president, Jimmy Carter was president and he claimed the election was stolen.


That's not a coincidence and the reason why is common sense. It's called the bully pulpit for a reason.
I don't think it's a coincidence either. There is a common cause.

Topic's author
#123
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,971
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I said it wasn't the same
It's close enough to make your pearl clutching a double standard.
A "lie" perpetuated by an entire community of Americans based on their own lived experiences going back over a century, and a lie spread by the president of the United States based on conspiracy theories...

No, not even close.

A "lie" that leads to civil unrest all over the country putting public officials in a very difficult position with regards to where they draw the line in protecting public property knowing that the very act of doing so will, if done wrong, feed into the very sentiment causing the rioting in the first place, vs a lie that resulted in an attack on the US Capitol where none of the latter concerns existed and yet the president of the United States figured he'd rather sit on his ass and watch it on TV than to intervene...

No, not even close.

And if that was too many words for you, one was a matter of civil unrest that put public officials in a no win situation, the other was conspiracy theory nonsense for which the remedy was a no brainer.

Not even close.

You said:

It used to be the case that the loser concedes and everyone  moves on.
False
They did move on. "Not a legitimate president" and "not the president", are two different things. You seem to conveniently forget that post 2016 was a very different context from post 2020. In 2016 no one had ever seriously tried to claim the winner of the election was not the person Americans actually voted for, so hyperbolic language and simbolic voting carried a very different meaning. Once that happens and the Overton window shifts to the point where people actually start believing our elections aren't secure, these words and actions carry a very different meaning.

This is basic human nature. It's like comparing Trump to Hitler before someone almost successfully assassinated him vs doing it after. After the attempt the right went crazy over this claiming the left was inciting violence and yet they said almost nothing while it was happening. The connotation changed.

These examples aren't the same. This is a dishonestly false equivocation.

#124
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I said it wasn't the same
It's close enough to make your pearl clutching a double standard.
A "lie" perpetuated by an entire community of Americans based...
Oh I don't think those lies are all grass roots. In fact there is documentary evidence that the lies started in the media.


And if that was too many words for you, one was a matter of civil unrest that put public officials in a no win situation
Civil unrest be like that though. That's why they didn't shoot (more) of the Jan 6 mob. Shooting people just makes em angrier much of the time.


the other was conspiracy theory nonsense for which the remedy was a no brainer.
So if only he had recanted? REPENT! AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED?!

Well that can be why you don't vote for him because you are very confused about correlated probabilities, but it won't be why I don't vote for him.


They did move on.
"It used to be the case that the loser concedes and everyone  moves on."
"and", learn English Mr. "Basic English" guy.


You seem to conveniently forget that post 2016 was a very different context from post 2020.
They tried mass propaganda and lawfare and saved the riots for a bit later. Russia collusion hoax, Ukraine extortion hoax & projection, impeachments, direct disobedience to POTUS and lying to him about the disposition of the troops.


In 2016 no one had ever seriously tried to claim the winner of the election was not the person Americans actually voted for
False, also 2000


so hyperbolic language and simbolic voting carried a very different meaning
How convenient for your double standard.


Once that happens and the Overton window shifts to the point where people actually start believing our elections aren't secure
So you're allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater until people actually believed it.

Or in other words, Americans for the most part saw through the lies of the left-tribe but something about 2016 made them actually take the possibility of fraud seriously. It could only have been Trump's overwhelming orange charisma, no other explanations permitted.


After the attempt the right went crazy over this claiming the left was inciting violence and yet they said almost nothing while it was happening
They said plenty while it was happening, but it was a prediction that came true after the fact.

I know it's a slow roll but it's a prediction I made as well. Many of my predictions about increasing violence and loss of faith in the government have come true over the last 8 years BTW, doesn't take a genius.