January 6th Hearings

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 655
Topic's author
#571
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
I’m only asking why. I believe it’s because he’s a fed and that seems to be the only reasonable explanation of why he hasn’t been arrested.
These two sentences contradict each other. Just asking questions means you haven’t drawn any conclusion or at least are not insinuating one. But you are as your second sentence makes clear. It’s the latter I am pushing back against, because at least so far you have provided no valid evidence for that. This is the text book example of an argument from ignorance.

You have yet to provide an alternate explanation; instead, you just say it’s not true.
I’ve never said or implied anything like that. A not guilty verdict is not as assertion of innocence.

I’ve made no argument regarding the truth value of your claims. I’m simply asking you to substantiate them. Those are not the same thing.

Calling for people to storm the Capitol is a stupid thing that he shouldn’t be charged for. Wow. Talk about ignoring actual incitement.
Incitement does not mean Person A said X and Person B committed X. That’s correlation. Incitement requires causation. Can you point to one person who on January 6th stormed the Capitol because Ray Epps told them so? No, of course you can’t, because Ray Epps was just some dude in a crowd already riled up by Trump.

Someone who verbally word for word said storm the Capitol shouldn’t be charged but a man who said peacefully and patriotically should be banned from office and put into jail.
I love how you continue to pretend “peacefully and patriotically” was the only thing Trump said on January 6th and did in the events leading up to it.

As if he is speech was not an hour long and as if it did not include telling the crowd their voice was stolen from them and they need to fight like hell to get it back, two things that directly contradict the idea of a peaceful protest.

As if his speech did not follow other speeches where the crowd was told “today is the day we start talking down names and kicking ass” and “let’s have trial by combat”.

As if Trump did not walk into January 6th already aware that the crowd he summoned via his public announcement on Twitter was not a serious threat to the US Capitol.

As if he had not spent the prior two months setting the stage for this very outcome.

And as if he did not spend the three hours while this was going on and the country watched on in horror, sitting around the White House gleeful about what was going on. To this day he is still claiming the group that invaded the Capitol did so “because they are smart”. In other words: storming the Capitol is exactly what they were supposed to do.

That is why Trump should be in jail. Not because of the one liner you continue to cherry pick out of a months long effort to set this whole thing up.
Topic's author
#572
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@coal
When you want to fight about narratives, you've lost the argument. 

This isn't about narratives.  It's about what happened
A narrative is literally one’s description of what happened. I’m asking you for yours since you continue to push this.

But I’m not surprised at your half baked attempt to make it look like I’m the one who’s not worth the discussion here. This is what conspiracy theorists do and why the term conspiracy theorist is used as a pejorative; you start by “just asking questions” and then when pushed into explaining what you think it all adds up to refuse to offer anything. That’s because saying it out loud not only shows that your evidence doesn’t amount to anything that is both coherent and worthy of attention, it also shows that you aren’t actually having a good faith conversation. Anyone interested in reality would care about what their own evidence amounts to, not dismiss requests for a narrative as somehow different from a request for you to explain what you think happened.
#573
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
hold on,

aren't you the "conspiracy theorist" here ?

are you not claiming that there was a well coordinated CONSPIRACY to "overthrow the government of the united states" ?
#574
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
A description of reality is: (a) either true or false; and (b) either complete or incomplete. 

A "narrative" is an interpretation of reality that is cast in the light most favorable to how you'd like for reality to have been.  Parts may be true.  Other parts may be false.  Aspects may be complete, but the picture as a whole often never is.  That is to say, narratives are bullshit.

And I'm calling bullshit on what you've been peddling here, which is why we're not connecting.  You are engaging in advocacy for a particular narrative that you don't even recognize as such, because (1) you've accepted it as fact uncritically and (2) to the extent that you are not only unwilling, but demonstrably unable to contend with the fact that a timestamped video from the capital obviates your claims as to the sequence of events on January 6th. 

I am calling bullshit on your doing so.  You respond with wild accusations that directing your attention to what all can see with their own eyes somehow makes me a conspiracy theorist.  That doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy.

At least Oro had the temerity to claim "But your eyes deceive you!"  You have not even gone that far.

Oro's argument is "Don't look up!  But if you do, what you think you see isn't what you see!" 

You're arguing "There is no such direction as up!"  

Further, I'm increasingly irritated by how you keep trying to put me in the same bucket as Trump supporters. That specious idiocy is what pisses me off and it is why I don't take your views on these issues seriously.  You flat-out refuse to engage in good faith and stereotype everyone who disagrees with you as embodying the archetypally worst version of your perceived "opposition."  Only to the limited extent I see you trying to engage in good faith with the facts will I respond to the substance of any point you make.  This is unfortunate, because abent the partisan bullshit you clearly have the capability to understand what I am saying.  

In case you forgot, I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.  I voted for Hillary in 2016 and did not vote in the 2020 presidential election (although I liked the libertarian candidate).  You have been informed of where I stand on that set of issues no less than two dozen times.  I did not support Trump then and he is hardly my preference now.  You are readily aware of the fact that I'm not even a Republican, and certainly not a "MAGA" type.  And yet, you act as if I'm marching on Charlottesville --- which is beginning to piss me off to the extent I'm going to become far more dismissive of anything you say moving forward.  
#575
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm reminded of the news reports from V for Vendetta. lol
#576
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,056
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
The guy seems clearly in a cultish mindset where if you are not with him, then you are against him. A modern day Don Quixote.
#577
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,056
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
What is really scary is how far and deep the elite left has indoctrinated its members into instinctively recoiling in horror to even THINK about questioning the government.

It would be like questioning the existence of god.
Topic's author
#578
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
aren't you the "conspiracy theorist" here ?

are you not claiming that there was a well coordinated CONSPIRACY to "overthrow the government of the united states" ?
I assume you are responding in large part to the arguments I made in the conspiracy thread. In that thread I made clear that the technical usage of the term points to something that is not inherently fallacious whereas the colloquial usage does, and I made clear the logical fallacies that embody the colloquial usage of the conspiracy theorist label. So to apply that label to me without being able to point out where I am making those same errors proves my point.
#579
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,056
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Rules for thee and not for me. lol
#580
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I assume you are responding in large part to the arguments I made in the conspiracy thread. In that thread I made clear that the technical usage of the term points to something that is not inherently fallacious whereas the colloquial usage does, and I made clear the logical fallacies that embody the colloquial usage of the conspiracy theorist label. So to apply that label to me without being able to point out where I am making those same errors proves my point.
in a way,

every police investigation is some sort of hypothesis, or "conspiracy theory" that at some point either does or does not lead to a conviction

all political organizers are conspirators (with the implicit aim to remove government officials from power and to replace them)
Topic's author
#581
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@coal
A "narrative" is an interpretation of reality that is cast in the light most favorable to how you'd like for reality to have been.
There is no reputable source anywhere that defines the word narrative in such a way. This is yet another example of you making up words so that you can straw man me.

Narrative: “a spoken or written account of connected events; a story”
-Google/Oxford

Just because people use narratives to convey messages that are deceitful or exaggerated does not mean deceitfulness or exaggeration are elements of the term.

to the extent that you are not only unwilling, but demonstrably unable to contend with the fact that a timestamped video from the capital obviates your claims as to the sequence of events on January 6th.
Complete nonsense. The events in your video occurred at 2:34. My timeline showed that congress was evacuated at 2:24. There is nothing inconsistent about my timeline and your video. This was already explained to you in post 392. You had no response to offer.

If you’re not going to respond to my points refuting what you just said, you don’t get to pretend your points obliterated mine.

You respond with wild accusations that directing your attention to what all can see with their own eyes somehow makes me a conspiracy theorist.
No, I have asked you repeatedly to tell us what you’re insinuating based on your “evidence” and you refuse to do so, so I explained how what you are doing mirrors what conspiracy theorists do precisely.

You are readily aware of the fact that I'm not even a Republican, and certainly not a "MAGA" type.  And yet, you act as if I'm marching on Charlottesville --- which is beginning to piss me off to the extent I'm going to become far more dismissive of anything you say moving forward.
I couldn’t care less who you voted for, what “type” you are, or whether you marched in Charlottesville. And I certainly couldn’t care less how pissed of you’re getting. What I care about are your arguments. If it bothers you so much to be compared to conspiracy theorists, then stop doing the same things they are known for doing.

Perhaps if you focus on the points being made and stop taking everything I say so damn personally we could have a productive discussion. If I thought you were such a whacked out conspiracy theorist I wouldn’t bother. I point out the similarities because I think you are better then that and assume you think so too, so the fact that you are doing all of the same things they are should make you think. Instead all you do is respond by attacking me, so as far as I am concerned your assessment of me is all projection.
Topic's author
#582
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It's unusual because out of the thousands of people he was the only one recorded doing it without being arrested.
Ok… so what?

Is the argument here that if thousands of people on a crowd get arrested, whoever didn’t must be a fed?

Rules for thee and not for me.
I explained what the “rules” are in another thread which I was referencing. I would invite you to read and absorb it so you can learn something and actually understand what those whom you disagree with are saying but clearly, all you’re interested in are your one liners to own the libs in front of your friends. Or at least to convince yourself that this is what you’re accomplishing.
Topic's author
#583
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I already went through this in the other thread. Did you read it?

The point of everything I said was that there is a big difference in what meets the technical definition of a conspiracy theory vs what people are actually talking about when they use the term in the colloquial sense.

Technically, any two people who commit a crime together is a conspiracy, so technically, anyone who makes the case for their guilt is engaging in a conspiracy theory.

But if you tell someone they are a conspiracy theorist that is not what any normal person understands the term to mean in our society.

As I already went through, conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense are epitomized by certain errors of logic and futilely invalid processes of thinking; the expansion of the theory to include all evidence presented against it, the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies, the usage of the absence of evidence as evidence, and the refusal to provide a clear narrative instead pretending they’re “just asking questions” when it is clear they are making strong insinuations.

That’s what the term “conspiracy theorist” points to. So unless you can show me how I’m guilty of these fallacies you can stop arguing that there is some validity to acting is if a standard police investigation is the same thing. It’s not.
#584
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Projection?  And just what exactly do you think I am projecting? 

In case it wasn't clear, I don't think any other aspect of your most recent post to me requires my response.  
#585
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot

Fantasies for me, at the expense of facts for thee.
#586
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Technically, any two people who commit a crime together is a conspiracy, so technically, anyone who makes the case for their guilt is engaging in a conspiracy theory.
religion is basically a conspiracy theory

some invisible intelligence is controlling everything and some other invisible intelligence is trying to sabotage

also,

do you understand that every single government on earth has an entire branch devoted to COVERT OPERATIONS 

this is a fact, not a theory or a hypothesis

it was only in the 1980s that the term “conspiracy theory” began to really have the negative connotations we associate with it today

commonly used as a pejorative, ad hominem attack and rush-to-disqualify

it is an obvious logical fallacy to use the term "conspiracy theory" to attempt to discredit an individual and their often unstated case
#587
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,950
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Rules for thee and not for me. lol
I agree, barbarians have no rules of engagement,  Romans etc have rules of unified engagement and strategy  they follow to win the battle and the war.

Trumpet and his band of narcissist followers, do not follow rules. They follow only a false narrative, --the election was stolen---  because the false narrative fulfills their most genetically  infantile lusts and desires.

Again Trumpet states ' we ' are going to march to the capitol.  What a narcissistic joke.

It was the tapes that were Nixons demise, and with Trumpet he makes sure there are no tapes, photo, phone call logs or secret service calls to be used as evidence.  Trumpet is  gangster who has been playing his Mafia-like game for decades. With his number hench-man { Rudy } by  his side, he feels he is invincible to truth of jan insurrection to overthrow USA fair elections.

Thank God for the Christian dogma of sanity with Pence.  The barbarians always slip away from the fight of truth in the territories of a false narrative they've practiced all of their lives.   At first, their scared of the truth, then they turn their false cheek, off a tried and true false narrative and attempt an end run around the truth.

After all, the Jan 6 invaders are mostly white people who where just visiting the white house and there is never any danger from those people who are just like them, there mostly white.  The nation knows this so they feel a sense of white security blanket to protect them from the orange false narrative back side of the good white peoples face of blanket always a winner for them.

White is might and always right!....all hail the chief orange man his band of orange parrots!

Arise all angry orange  patriots,  and attack the institution of democracy of fair elections, for we all know, orange is the new white supremacy.

Our orange sparticans will defeat the great empire of institution and its support of a pregnant woman right to body autonomy. I say onto thee, the rules are for them, not us. For thee not me......... Fight! Fight! Fight!........

Thank god these orange patriots are not into peace and love, cause who knows what might happen then. Peaceful white college students might get shot by the national guard. That might look bad for orange patriots. We dont want another Kent state on our orange bloody hands. Do we?

Check with Trumpet and Rudy, and see what they think. Check with all of the lawyers also.  Should we check with attorney general B Barr?  No, he and vice president of sided with friggin institutions of truth.  Their friggin turncoats and you know what we do with turncoats like Pence?  No Mr Meadows I forget what we do with those turncoats.

We cause more chaos and confused to blind the public from the truth and increase the smoke screen of a false narrative because it is the orange-patriotic thing to do. Rise fellow orange sparticans! Rise and unify behind the orange boss! Delete, delete delete all logs, photos and records of the truth, immediately.

But Mr Meadows, what about all the media, coverage? We convinced the public all long time ago that the media does portrays the truth ergo, they will not see angry orange patriots on Jan 6, they  will only see white people having a nice self guided stroll through the capitol building on that day.
#588
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,056
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
Fantasies for me, at the expense of facts for thee.
I am not looking forward to the political pendulum shift where the Right will be airing shows on primetime to tell Americans what to be upset about.


Why is this trend acceptable at all?
#589
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
#590
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,648
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Lock Him Up!  Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up!

Oh, I'm talking about Bannon, not Trump ( for now).
Topic's author
#591
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
commonly used as a pejorative, ad hominem attack and rush-to-disqualify
If I called someone a conspiracy theorist as a means of not having to engage in their arguments you might have a point. That’s not what I have done and if you’ve paid attention to anything I’ve said (which seems obvious by now you have not) you would know that.

Let’s recap;

I’ve explained to you the difference between the term in the technical sense vs the colloquial sense.

I’ve explained what each of these entail in detail and why the latter is not worthy of being taken seriously.

I’ve explained how each of the individuals I’ve accused of meeting the colloquial definition did so by breaking down their arguments in detail.

I’ve challenged you multiple times to explain to me how anything I’ve argued meets my own colloquial definition. You have provided nothing.

If you still don’t understand by this point it’s because you choose not to.
Topic's author
#592
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@coal
Projection?  And just what exactly do you think I am projecting?
For starters, that my interest is in painting you some kind of way. As if I’m not the one who’s been arguing the case while you have consistently responded by talking about me instead.
Topic's author
#593
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
So in case anyone was watching yesterday, it turns out Trump’s actions on January 6th were exactly what we thought… while the US Capitol was being attacked by a mob forcing congress to evacuate, Trump was watching the whole thing play out on Fox News and made absolutely zero effort to stop it.

When would someone in a position to stop something make no effort to do so? Because that was exactly what he wanted to happen. That’s basic common sense and refutes every argument made by those who claim Trump didn’t want violence.

That’s it. That’s all.
#594
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,170
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh look another investigation. Add one more to the list of failed investigations. Gonna be funny when the Trump DOJ goes after Hunter and Joe after 2024. You reap what you sow.

#595
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,056
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
McCarthy might
Topic's author
#596
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Gonna be funny when the Trump DOJ goes after Hunter and Joe after 2024. You reap what you sow.
So investigating a president who tried to overthrow an election and invited a mob to attack the US Capitol gives good reason for republicans to investigate a president for anything?

Interesting logic there.
#597
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,170
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
So investigating a president who tried to overthrow an election and invited a mob to attack the US Capitol gives good reason for republicans to investigate a president for anything?

Interesting logic there.
So not investigating possible foreign influence in our government via the son of the government isn’t a good reason? Gotcha
#598
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,170
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Who’s the “Big Man?”

#599
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,056
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Probably hairy legs in the sun
#600
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I’ve challenged you multiple times to explain to me how anything I’ve argued meets my own colloquial definition. You have provided nothing.
which highlights "the problem" with accusing someone of "conspiracy theory"

this january sixth thing certainly qualifies