Trump and the riots

[Shadow Wolf]

Whatever, just because you don’t like certain news sources

It's a fact Newsmax has been spinning things in a pro-Trump way. They hold some responsibility over the Capitol riots because they did perpetuate Trump's lies about the election and they did help fuel those fires.

The United States government has instigated numerous coups in other countries, inciting violence, death and destruction. Several of these real and deadly insurrections occurred during the Obama/ Biden administration.
These real insurrections, orchestrated with tactical, covert military operatives shine the light on what an insurrection is.

And? So? I am aware of this. I do not support it. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

A bunch of disorganized nuts, a guy with Viking horns, or people caught up in a mob scene at the Capitol on January 6th was not an insurrection.

They attempted to overthrow elected officials and seem to have had killing some of them as a goal.
That is an insurrection. It having failed and lacking a stronger cohesiveness does not change this.

 

[Martin]

It's a fact Newsmax has been spinning things in a pro-Trump way. They hold some responsibility over the Capitol riots because they did perpetuate Trump's lies about the election and they did help fuel those fires.

And? So? I am aware of this. I do not support it. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

They attempted to overthrow elected officials and seem to have had killing some of them as a goal.
That is an insurrection. It having failed and lacking a stronger cohesiveness does not change this.

At least one of the rioters had cable-tie hand-cuffs. The mob erected a gallows and were chanting "Hang Mike Pence".

 

[InChrist]

It's a fact Newsmax has been spinning things in a pro-Trump way. They hold some responsibility over the Capitol riots because they did perpetuate Trump's lies about the election and they did help fuel those fires.

And? So? I am aware of this. I do not support it. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

They attempted to overthrow elected officials and seem to have had killing some of them as a goal.
That is an insurrection. It having failed and lacking a stronger cohesiveness does not change this.

Well, I have to get going somewhere right now, so can’t respond further. Personally, I think the whole thing is theatrics: Trump, Biden , the militarized occupied inauguration in D.C., etc. We are witnessing the demise of the USA as we’ve known it, including the freedom we’ve been used to.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

1) That source is Newsmax, one of the worst/most biased sources you can use.

2) Please don't use the so-often-debunked "People just don't like Trump" stuff. People don't like Trump because of the stuff he's done and said. Not the other way around. For 2 months Trump railed against the election results, claiming it was fraudulent, fighting it in court where it was thrown out almost every time, and even trying to strong-arm a governor into creating votes out of thin air, so he could win Georgia. He encouraged his supporters the whole time to buy into this ridiculous narrative, claiming the democrats were stealing the election. No, he never explicitly said "Go storm the Capitol and attack Congress". People like him rarely make it quite that plain, but it's obvious from everything he and his politician supporters said for 2 months that they were encouraging that kind of behavior.

Here's a collection of clips of exactly how this was strongly encouraged by Trump and his people:

Actually some of those quotes I've heard he say in some of his speeches. I picked it based on what I've heard myself watching his talks and such.

Do anti trumpers read sites that favor trump and say "they have a good point" or does their cognitive bias make them see falsehood in any resources that supports trump?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not sure if this would be considered on a objective basis since people hate Trump, but I never thought he started the riot at the capitol. Here's something about it Trump Did Not Cause, Commit Capitol Riots

On three occasions during his speech, President Trump encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol and cheer for Trump's election. President Trump, however, did not state or imply that anyone should breach the Capitol, vandalize it or accost the lawmakers. In fact, he specifically stated that their protest should be peaceful. The three statements are as follows:

"And, after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down, any one you want but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave Senators, Congressmen and women."

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building, to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

"We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give, the Democrats are hopeless, they're never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

...

Whether the author likes Trump or not (which is irrelevant) is not really the issue. To me, it's more people already didn't like Trump so they pin anything on the guy just because of the behavior of his "followers."

Enjoy

If you completely ignore the social and political context, and the simple fact that the reason the march existed at all is because of conspiracy theories Trump repeatedly pushed despite all evidence to the contrary, and only look at what somebody literally says, then you're not really understanding the consequences of Trump's actions.

The facts are that that march only existed as a direct consequence of Trump's complete inability to accept reality, his exaggerated rhetoric, and his outright lies. It is not a manipulation to say that everything that transpired on January 6th was an inevitable and direct conclusion of Trump's behaviour and rhethoric following the result of the election. Just because he never told anybody "Break into the Capitol building" does not remove his culpability for the fact the rioters he inspired to do that very thing were driven to do so by him.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually some of those quotes I've heard he say in some of his speeches. I picked it based on what I've heard myself watching his talks and such.

Do anti trumpers read sites that favor trump and say "they have a good point" or does their cognitive bias make them see falsehood in any resources that supports trump?

You picked it because it's one that supports your point. The only people supporting your point are those like Newsmax who are extremely biased and dishonest.

I don't read sites that favor Trump. I don't read sites that disfavor Trump. I read from sites that favor truth, reason and reality. Those sources tend not to be too favorable toward Trump for obvious reasons. There's no cognitive bias that makes me see falsehood in any resources that support Trump. It's just a fact that the sources who support him are biased and dishonest. If they weren't, they wouldn't favor Trump in the first place.

Instead of dishonestly accusing others of irrational bias, maybe check out your own.

 

[Ponder This]

Considering Newsmax (along with OAN) have replaced Fox as the King of RW spin I'm not surprised they would say he's not responsible. Those clowns and cretins were, after all, strong supporters of the nonsense of a stolen election from massive fraud.
And don't forget, Trump also told them to "fight like hell" and fight to have a legitimate election overthrown.

FYI: "fight like Hell" is a common American idiom.

Cherry-picking that out of Trump's speech is like admitting you couldn't find anything in his speech.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You picked it because it's one that supports your point. The only people supporting your point are those like Newsmax who are extremely biased and dishonest.

I don't read sites that favor Trump. I don't read sites that disfavor Trump. I read from sites that favor truth, reason and reality. Those sources tend not to be too favorable toward Trump for obvious reasons. There's no cognitive bias that makes me see falsehood in any resources that support Trump. It's just a fact that the sources who support him are biased and dishonest. If they weren't, they wouldn't favor Trump in the first place.

Instead of dishonestly accusing others of irrational bias, maybe check out your own.

Shrugs. I'm not a political person so I have no sides. I go with what makes sense regardless who says it. (I don't have people bias to facts).

How do you form an opinion if you don't read any resources that both favor or don't favor politicians?

Are you from the US?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You picked it because it's one that supports your point. The only people supporting your point are those like Newsmax who are extremely biased and dishonest.

... It supports the point in the OP. My personal views are not always align with things I post.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not sure if this would be considered on a objective basis since people hate Trump, but I never thought he started the riot at the capitol. Here's something about it Trump Did Not Cause, Commit Capitol Riots

On three occasions during his speech, President Trump encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol and cheer for Trump's election. President Trump, however, did not state or imply that anyone should breach the Capitol, vandalize it or accost the lawmakers. In fact, he specifically stated that their protest should be peaceful. The three statements are as follows:

"And, after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down, any one you want but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave Senators, Congressmen and women."

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building, to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

"We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give, the Democrats are hopeless, they're never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

...

Whether the author likes Trump or not (which is irrelevant) is not really the issue. To me, it's more people already didn't like Trump so they pin anything on the guy just because of the behavior of his "followers."

Enjoy

Not only is that true... but the breach happened while he was still talking. Time-wise, an impossibility for him to finish talking and then have the people start moving forward.

That being said, because of the dynamics of a mob, regular people do irregular things and I'm sure there were some Trumpeters along with Antifa and other fringe groups.

 

[Magic Man]

Shrugs. I'm not a political person so I have no sides. I go with what makes sense regardless who says it. (I don't have people bias to facts).

How do you form an opinion if you don't read any resources that both favor or don't favor politicians?

Are you from the US?

Using sources like Newsmax involves "having a side" and not just going with what makes sense. Making the argument you're making is taking a side, and the source you're using is firmly on the side of Trump at all costs.

I am from the U.S. I form an opinion based on facts and objective reporting. Here's a god guide to media sources as far as bias/objectivity/reliability go.

 

[Magic Man]

... It supports the point in the OP. My personal views are not always align with things I post.

So you post things you don't believe? Then why should anyone engage with you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure if this would be considered on a objective basis since people hate Trump, but I never thought he started the riot at the capitol. Here's something about it Trump Did Not Cause, Commit Capitol Riots

On three occasions during his speech, President Trump encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol and cheer for Trump's election. President Trump, however, did not state or imply that anyone should breach the Capitol, vandalize it or accost the lawmakers. In fact, he specifically stated that their protest should be peaceful. The three statements are as follows:

"And, after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down, any one you want but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave Senators, Congressmen and women."

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building, to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

"We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give, the Democrats are hopeless, they're never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

...

Whether the author likes Trump or not (which is irrelevant) is not really the issue. To me, it's more people already didn't like Trump so they pin anything on the guy just because of the behavior of his "followers."

Enjoy

I find this after-the-fact spin to be interesting.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the message Trump's supporters should be taking away is that if they do what he asks and things go bad, there will be no loyalty or support from Trump or anyone else in the movement.

People who watched Trump's speech know what he said. The meaning was clear. Now they know that if they stick their necks out for Trump, they're going to be completely on their own.

Hopefully this teaches people that they shouldn't stick their necks out for Trump.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Using sources like Newsmax involves "having a side" and not just going with what makes sense. Making the argument you're making is taking a side, and the source you're using is firmly on the side of Trump at all costs.

I am from the U.S. I form an opinion based on facts and objective reporting. Here's a god guide to media sources as far as bias/objectivity/reliability go.

Of course media has bias. It's alright not to trust certain sites. I assume many media sites, of course, have false information and many have facts. Unless you're saying Trump didn't say those things regardless the site it's on, I'm not getting your point related to the OP.

Edit:
Are you saying the information is wrong because its on that particular site or you just don't trust the validity of the site regardless what's on it is fact or fiction (or ambiguity of)?

 

[Magic Man]

Of course media has bias. It's alright not to trust certain sites. I assume many media sites, of course, have false information and many have facts. Unless you're saying Trump didn't say those things regardless the site it's on, I'm not getting your point related to the OP.

Edit:
Are you saying the information is wrong because its on that particular site or you just don't trust the validity of the site regardless if what's on it is fact or fiction (or ambiguity of)?

I'm saying the info you get from that site is selective. They're going to include actual facts, but in a dishonest way. In this case, they can include some things Trump said and ignore the others that contradict their point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not only is that true... but the breach happened while he was still talking. Time-wise, an impossibility for him to finish talking and then have the people start moving forward.

That being said, because of the dynamics of a mob, regular people do irregular things and I'm sure there were some Trumpeters along with Antifa and other fringe groups.

Except some have said they were present at both. Except antifa. The RW boogeyman was not there. And the horned ******* feels upset people are taking his credit and giving it to antifa.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

FYI: "fight like Hell" is a common American idiom.

Fight like hell to overturn a fair and legit election is not typical for here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I find this after-the-fact spin to be interesting.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the message Trump's supporters should be taking away is that if they do what he asks and things go bad, there will be no loyalty or support from Trump or anyone else in the movement.

People who watched Trump's speech know what he said. The meaning was clear. Now they know that if they stick their necks out for Trump, they're going to be completely on their own.

Hopefully this teaches people that they shouldn't stick their necks out for Trump.

(I read). I find that Trump can say things that are true but taken as a whole, no one would believe him (crying wolf). I agree with @KenS, though. The timing was off. I feel it was all the people. Trump doesn't need all the credit for his followers' irrational behaviors.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm saying the info you get from that site is selective. They're going to include actual facts, but in a dishonest way. In this case, they can include some things Trump said and ignore the others that contradict their point.

I see that with both for- and anti- Trump. It's hard to find any non-biased information for Trump online and it's hard to find any media to where the reporters and so forth are impartial to their opinions about Trump. Even on the presidential debates, the mediator was making comments that undermined Trump. I assume all the social media sites are deleting any support-trump information maybe due to liability and other concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if the government forced them to do it.

 

[Magic Man]

I see that with both for- and anti- Trump. It's hard to find any non-biased information for Trump online and it's hard to find any media to where the reporters and so forth are impartial to their opinions about Trump. Even on the presidential debates, the mediator was making comments that undermined Trump. I assume all the social media sites are deleting any support-trump information maybe due to liability and other concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if the government forced them to do it.

Yeah, this is going way off the rails now. I mean, first of all, "the government" was Trump until just yesterday. "The government" didn't force any companies to do anything.

Again, this is why I gave you that chart. It gives you a good guide to sources that give reliable info/takes on Trump and everything else. It's not hard to find objective, factual information about Trump. All you're doing is furthering his attempt to confuse everything, so people don't know what to believe and therefore everything is fair game. It's an attack on truth, reality and our democracy.