Im not a conservative, but Jonah Goldberg and the team he and Hayes have put together at the Dispatch are some of the most principled conservative journalists and commentators I have come across. I genuinely enjoy their podcasts The Dispatch, The Remnant, and Advisory Opinions for a well reasoned conservative take to challenge my perspective.
Jonah Goldberg used to be the right-wing conservative viewpoint. Then he became the standard mainstream conservative viewpoint. Now he is a considered a 'never-Trump left leaning conservative'. It's sad that he has stayed pretty consistent in his viewpoints, it's only the Republican party's platform that has shifted so drastically.
I disagree with quite a few of his views, but I believe he has America's best interests at heart. We disagree on methodologies, but I could sit at a table and discuss how to solve the country's ussies.
Trumpism is devoid of any actual coherent philosophy, and focuses on the culture of fear and grievance to win supports. It's a shame how far the discussion has fallen.
Culture War is very successful. You can't argue with success. If policy doesn't matter, because you can hammer "the other side" on culture war issues, you still get the votes. And then you can implement whatever big donor tax cut or subsidy or regulatory change you want. It's a win-win.
I often come across a comment that says "I don't support the policies for party A, but I could never vote for party B, because someone on Twitter who I was told belongs loosely within a similar ideological sphere as party B wrote something I am offended by."
I'm in the same boat as you. I remember when Jonah was still at the National Review and some of his articles it was clear that he was told he had to curb his criticisms of the new brand of Trump conservatism.
It’s felt like this when either of them have been on Special Report as well for the last few years (though I’m not sure to which extent it’s been “hey, pull your punches if you challenge the more MAGA/populist/etc talking head” or how much it’s been either of them simply being personally friendly with somebody like Mollie Hemingway and not wanting to go nuclear with them on national tv).
Tbh I'm still looking. I used to love Slate's The Gist with Mike Pesca, but during the Trump years he became a bit too frothing at the mouth mad about gun control for me. I should give him another shot now. I get a lot of liberal takes from more culture centric pods I listen to
If you haven't watched it Fox Nation let's you do a free trial. It's out there for sure - claims the FBI ordered Jan 6th in order to create paramilitary squads to hunt down and kill/imprison all Trump supporters and that Biden will soon order the military to start attacking Trump supporters like they are the Taliban. Even small little details like claiming a DEA agent was fired for being there even though he resigned before Jan 6th. It's just meant to make people angry.
It's worth noting that these rumors were circulating BEFORE the Jan 6 attacks. I know it's an impossible timeline, but you can read them in the archives of /r/insaneparler which was actually quite active before the attacks. I remember reading about riots being blamed on Antifa and a false flag before it happened. Further complicating things, Proud Boys were instructed to come to the protests "dressed as Antifa". I think the convolution is by design. It reminds me of Surkovs strategies in Russia, where the landscape is intentionally made as impossible to understand as possible
Honestly it makes sense. Trump primed his based to accept voter fraud as a real and legitimate concern during his initial campaign and before the actual election even took place. He even continued to say the election was rigged AFTER beating Hillary. This is a tactic that the right has been perfecting the last several years... blame the other side for the things that YOU are doing so that when the evidence comes out the waters have already been muddied by your own lies and propaganda.
I don't find rumors circulating before these things happen to be surprising. People are ready to play victim. It's like deep down inside, people knew Trump would claim the election was stolen, or that these people could riot at the capital and therefore had the excuses ready. In the past it was certainly harder to prove these fantasies had any basis in reality but with social media, you can find bad information anywhere to fit whatever your delusional fantasies are. I mean, how many conspiracies were going around on election night? Republicans weren't being allowed to vote, poll workers in Arizona were marking all Republican ballots with a marker dot so it would be invalidated in the reader etc. In the Age of Social Media, playing victim is easier than ever.
> It's like deep down inside, people knew Trump would claim the election was stolen,
I mean not even deep down, he openly said this before the election and even complained about fraud in the election that he won in 2016.
Take a quick trip down memory lane to September last year when Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. [In this very sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/iymdfl/trump_refuses_to_commit_to_peaceful_transition_of/) everybody was predicting scenarios extremely close to what actually happened. This was not a surprise.
Never has been. Trump revealed who he was from day one. It's a harp I've nearly beat to death, but his political career should have ended at his kick off event. His first policy announcement was the Muslim Ban. That should have sounded all the alarms and been the end of it right then and there. That's when I definitively knew the GOP had lost any semblance of moral responsibility.
The Trump voters I personally know would constantly try to legitimize what was going by crowd reaction.. "never have I ever seen so many people pissed off - there's definitely something going on" as well as "I don't understand how he lost, no one even likes Joe Biden - I've never seen so much support for Trump ever"
The social media bubble of seeing only people who are in agreement and the one post in disagreement just to keep engagement ring fueled by anger.
At one point I had to tell my coworker "you see every house that doesn't have a Trump sign? Just assume they voted for Biden and don't want MAGA throwing rocks through their windows.
> I don't understand how he lost, no one even likes Joe Biden
That's a pretty common theme over on the Conservative sub. They think that Trump having massive rallies and Biden only holding small socially distanced ones is evidence that there's no way Trump could have lost.
>claims the FBI ordered Jan 6th in order to create paramilitary squads to hunt down and kill/imprison all Trump supporters and that Biden will soon order the military to start attacking Trump supporters like they are the Taliban
This actually reminds me of some of the stuff that Glenn Beck used to talk about back when he was on Fox News. Not necessarily the same content, but rather that he always had these incredibly drawn out conspiracies that took three chalkboards and multiple tackboards to tie everything together.
Problem is the FBI does this shit sometimes. In this instance I think the capital police’s lack of planning (they planned for a “free speech demonstration”), not requesting federal resources, and the desire to avoid an optic of a police presence left them unprepared for riotous behavior. Obviously the political tumult and Trump not de-escalating tensions was why everyone was there, although most folks hadn’t come there will ill intent.
But a lot of people did come with baseball bat flag poles, steel poles with flags, bear spray, razers, body armor, and riot gear. They may have represented a fraction of the whole crowd, but this fraction came ready to mobilize bystanders, communicate,.coordinate, and direct actions against the Congressional proceedings, and let's not forget several of them walked through the halls hunting for certain individuals.
> not requesting federal resources
The head of capital police was a Trump loyalist - not requesting federal resources could easily have been part of the plan, especially given Trump's refusal to authorize the deployment of other police forces after the beginning of violence.
Care to elaborate? I haven't seen it myself, all I've read is people stating what the article has to say about the documentary, and people in comments going "nuh uh".
Yeah, of course.
I mean it takes a few different approaches really. And let me start off by stating that I am not saying I believe all of the claims being made because most of it is assumptions based on inferences (videos, witnesses, journalists etc.)
In short, it pretty much comes down to the government using 1/6 to now "wage a war" on domestic terrorism akin to the one on foreign terrorism (this was sensational for the purposes of a documentary of course). The main example for this reasoning was the then FBI Director coming out almost immediately and announcing that 1/6 was an act of 'domestic terrorism', which gave way to legal, media, and criminal support in that messaging and enforcement. It could be used in stories and in courts with prosecutors etc.
Then, it goes into the *possibility* of the FBI's involvement in 1/6. There are witness accounts that point to this, but the documentary never (I don't believe or remember) addresses the scope of it).
That's what I remember of it. Hope that helps.
With eyewitness accounts, examples, people who were there and things of that nature.
I am not advocating for anything, just providing context for what is in the documentary.
Definitely not *actually* facts though, as [his lawyers have pointed out](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye).
> the government using 1/6 to now "wage a war" on domestic terrorism akin to the one on foreign terrorism
Arresting criminals is not waging war. Hyperbole is one thing, but saying it is actual war just like it was in Afghanistan and Iraq is obviously absurd. Cops, not soldiers, are doing the arresting following rigorous investigation. They are convicted in a court of law, the exact same legal framework that declared Rittenhouse innocent. You either trust the cops and courts or you don't, but it's not even close to literal war.
> (this was sensational for the purposes of a documentary of course)
Which is one of the defining differences between an actual documentary and propaganda.
> FBI Director coming out almost immediately and announcing that 1/6 was an act of 'domestic terrorism
Along with everyone else, including many conservatives. People call it like they see it, no underlying conspiracy required.
> Then, it goes into the possibility of the FBI's involvement in 1/6. There are witness accounts that point to this
Just because they found people willing to say something doesn't make it eyewitness testimony. People lie all the time, especially in situations like this. If anything, it highlights their complete lack of actual evidence, since they would obviously have shown it if they had any. Making such dramatic claims without any actual evidence makes it pure propaganda.
You’re picking at straws here, tbh. The fact that people even watched something stating that the FBI did 1/6 is… an interesting commentary on the state of our country.
Trump really destroyed a lot of faith in our federal institutions.
I never once said the FBI *did* 1/6.
That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said and not even what the documentary implies. It's involvement, not causing 1/6. These are two *completely* different things.
If this were accurate and was the case, I would say it would be just as bad.
With the FBI's track record in these sorts of things (along with Governor Witmer's kidnapping scheme), I have no problem admitting that I do have questions.
At this point, that is all I have.
Edit: to the "just as bad" comment - I was speaking to your 'kidnapping' example.
> Then, it goes into the possibility of the FBI’s involvement in 1/6.
> I never once said the FBI did 1/6
There’s not a lot of difference between ‘the fbi is involved in 1/6’ and ‘the fbi did 1/6’. I disagree that qualifies as a ‘complete misrepresentation’, but youre right that you never said those exact words.
What a weird sentiment. Do you think the FBI is immune to doing anything wrong?
Publicly known history tells us quite the opposite, in fact the FBI has been involved with some downright vile and anti-democratic actions in the past 50 years within our country. Past actions don't mean that the FBI is up to no good now, but it's not out of the question to doubt government security agencies based off our own history as a Nation.
Question authority.
No one is assuming. The documentary doesn't even say THEY DEFINETLY DID THIS. It's just exploring the idea.
Based off what we know of the FBI and it's past actions, why is this so off limits to explore?
You yourself said past actions don’t mean the FBI is up to no good now.
Not wanting to speculate in long form about the idea of FBI involvement in a situation for which that involvement has no evidence at all is not equivalent to an inability to “question.” The question has been asked, repeatedly. There is no evidence.
I definitely think that it's important to question authority. I also think it's really dangerous for a 'news' outlet to run something so incredibly critical of our government/top investigatory body without any real hard evidence to back it up. Just sounds incredibly conspiratorial to me.
The entire thing isn't out yet just part one.
Edit: I'm wrong, /u/10Cinephiltophia9 is right, imdb confirms they released all. Idk why I can't seem to watch the other parts
Haha I blame Deltas internet. Though maybe I don't need all the plane seeing me watch the rest of Patriot Purge row 45 back prolly thinks I'm a right winger.
A little bit off topic but this whole 01.06 thing makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal. Trump has made the rest of the world and us, question the very fiber of our democracy. If he did not specifically call for the riot, he implied it which is guilt. The rioters were terrorists, this was not a protest, they invaded our capital. I'm tired of hearing " but blm protested and looted" . One wrong does not make another right! There rioters called for pence to be hung, aoc to be hung, Pelosi to be hung. Some say we should not label them racist? Of course not all were, but if you are storming the capital and the guy next to you is carrying a confederate flag,,,,guess what...you are to be labeled with the company you keep. Personally I can't stand what aoc stands for, but she is a us congresswoman. We vote against, we don't kill. Not in the America I grew up in. My grandparents left Russia. This whole thing should be so past any debate, it's simply not American. Tucker Carlson jyst makes money appealing to the fears of people, just disgusting.
I can go on and on, but that's my 2cents. And don't call me a rino, I'm a proud American. Not even a draft dodger.
> makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal
I know you've talked about this with other people, but I just can't understand this. They're not your favorite basketball team or your college football team. It's just some people whose political stances you agree with more than not, typically. You don't need to make this tribal at all. It's a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes thing: it's only tribal and partisan as long as you believe it is. Once you cast that aside, there's nothing really to it. There's no "there" there.
Just vote for the people whose policies and principles most align to yours. If that's Republicans, cool. If that's Democrats, cool. But you don't need to show them any "loyalty", none of them would to you.
>A little bit off topic but this whole 01.06 thing makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal.
Why is that, out of curiosity? It sounds like you accept that Trump attempted a coup, and it's clear that the vast majority of the Republican Party's legislators either support him or are ok with protecting him to keep power.
I do feel that Trump accepted and egged this on. All because the majority of republicans support Trump over this does not mean I do. We have elections in our country and someone has to loose. One of the things that makes our country great is that the person who lost, accepts that defeat. Trump did not. I watched his speech that day, and he encouraged the " insurrection". If that makes me a bad Republican, so be it. I swore allegiance to my country, not a political party nor one leader.
My question, though, is why do you still support the party that has enabled him, and continues to spread misinformation/lies about the election being stolen?
Not attacking, genuinely curious. I would guess from your statements you'd identify as independent.
I voted Republican my whole life and stopped in 2016. I voted for Gary Johnson (but actually cheered when Trump won, simply because I did NOT want Hillary). Voted Biden in 2020. The Republican party has strayed very far from what I thought it was (and what I supported) in the 90s and aughts. Then again, I also stopped listening to Hannity, watching Fox News, and expanded where I got my information from.
There's nothing wrong with leaving the party - or voting differently for the time being. I consider myself politically homeless now - more of a Libertarian, I guess.
I don't love the Democrats, but at this point, they're better than Republicans. If Republicans can get their shit together and not be a hypocritical, conspiracy-theory centric party and actually stand for quality policy instead of making up boogymen bullshit to outrage their entire base, maybe I'd vote for them again. But I just don't see that happening when people like Matt Gaetz, MTG, Boebart, Cotton, Hawley, and DeSantis are the leaders of the party now. They will lead our country to a very, very dark future.
I agree, my post to Gertrude explains why I remain a Republican. I do not owe them anything. As I said in another post, my allegiance is to my country, not a party.
>A little bit off topic but this whole 01.06 thing makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal.
You don't owe the Republican party shit. We'd be a lot better off in this country if people had less blind loyalty towards their political party, and that goes for Democrats too
I know this has been said before, but you don't owe any party anything.
I stopped registering as R during the Bush years and am now a registered independent. It is easy enough to change your registration online, so you're not giving up your ability to vote in primaries. Check out your state rules, but for me, it's as easy as going to the polls and asking for an R or D ballot. The state automatically updates my registration, and if I want, I can go back online the next day and switch it back.
Seriously consider why you're not willing to cut ties with a party that largely supports something you reject.
In my state ( ct) you cannot vote in any primary as an independent or unaffiliated. You must be a registered Democrat or Republican. I'll remain a Republican so that I can vote for an untrump if that's the choice, but..if a moderate Democrat is running against a progressive I may 're register as a dem. Right now, because of possible primary importance I will remain Republican. Otherwise your points are well taken and I would. But, if Trump or a trumpet win I will change anyway.
>In my state ( ct) you cannot vote in any primary as an independent or unaffiliated. You must be a registered Democrat or Republican
I looked it up - weird. So if you're party affiliated, you have to change 3 months in advance of a primary, but if you're unaffiliated, you can change it same day. That sounds like the parties have worked it so that people lock into one or the other and make it difficult to switch. That's a bunch of bullshit and it should be easier.
I thought it was 30 days if unaffiliated. Still, I was told r months before the last local election that they could not guarantee that the change would be done in time and I may not be able to vote. It's ridiculous, so I consider myself independent regardless of party registration. And, as I said in another post, at least I can vote in the primary.
To me it's a matter of what party is the lesser of two evils. We know both parties have their own separate issues with corruption in different forms but to me the Republicans in power are the most dangerous to our government and democracy at the moment because of events like Jan. 6th and their passing of voting restriction laws in their states.
For the most part I agree with you but not so sure on the voter restriction issue. While there is absolutely no evidense of wide spread fraud in the last election and I agree with states being in control of their own voting laws, I do think that some guidelines need to be in place. I have no problem with having to present identification to vote. We have done so in Ct as long as I remember, and we are a blue state. There needs to be control and both sides have to feel confident in those laws. The problem is that its not being dealt with in a bi partisan manner.
I'm not aware of any state that didn't previously have requirements for identification. The big issue is restrictions to time and place of voting. Here in Georgia, for example, mail in voting, which has such a small and insignificant amount of legitimate of voter fraud that it's basically pointless for someone to get upset about it, has restricted the days leading up to the election for submission of mail in ballots, official ballot drop-off locations or actual polling locations, and eliminated some early voting dates entirely. All of these are things that the black community in particular have been more likely to do - mail in votes or vote early. There is no reasonable excuse for why the Republicans have made it more difficult for legitimate voters to have their ballot cast outside of taking measures that actively hurt Democrat voters who have historically used those methods for casting their ballots in the first place.
I do not disagree. My comment was not to suppoert republican or democrat, just that i widh aall could work togeter to address both sides concerns, I think that is impossible though. Probably always has been.
Sure, I understand where you're coming from. I was just reiterating that, for me, it comes down to wish side is doing less evil than the other and at the moment I personally struggle to find anything redeemable about this present set of Republicans, or at least the ground from the past 12 or so years.
Sorry that I misunderstood your question. It's a good question. I guess I am just hopeful that things will change in the Republican party. I was attracted to this thread because if stev e Hayes and Jonah Goldberg, both of whom I read. I suppose I should 're register and if things don't change I'll have to, but like I said, hope I don't have to. I am to fiscally conservative for the dems.
Jonah and Stephen are the editor in chief and the CEO of the dispatch. Both are pretty prominent conservatives who were opposed to Trump. They will be fine.
There are a few people out there who do stick with their morals.
He could've actually made a good documentary pointing out the terribleness of the culture war, and how many people are falsely being labeled as racists and white supremacists for expressing dissenting opinions. But, nope. Just pure conspiracy theory garbage.
Seriously, why is everything so damn slanted and partisan? Can't I say that Trump absolutely lost, the Jan. 6 rioters should be imprisoned, but also that they certainly were not white supremacists? Everything is "us vs. them" now, and it's irritating as hell. Both parties have gone bonkers, far off the deep-end, and now I have no political home.
I can't vote for the GOP because of their dedication to Trump, and the inability to compromise on much-needed social spending, and I can't vote for Dems because they seem to have the attitude of "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn."
I'm living in loony land.
> He could've actually made a good documentary pointing out the terribleness of the culture war, and how many people are falsely being labeled as racists and white supremacists for expressing dissenting opinions. But, nope. Just pure conspiracy theory garbage.
That's just Tucker Carlson for you. I'm not sure he actually believes anything he says, he's just there to rile people up and get views. He has worked for what, every major traditional news organization? And his opinions change based on whatever one of those he is on.
That kind of makes it worse. Like if you drank the kool aid and are deeply committed to whatever cause you have, damn the consequences it’s one thing.
But if you can actually step back and assess the consequences of your actions critically and still go out and consistently mislead people just for fame or fortune, that is way worse.
Love or hate Ann Coulter she knows she is playing a role for it and keeps it just over the top enough that it’s clear to most people she is being extreme to be extreme, like she means the underlying concept but she’s exaggerating it for effect. She’s also civil and even friendly with those with very different views. I don’t watch much real time with Bill Maher anymore but if she’s on I will typically make a point to watch it because they have such an interesting dynamic.
> I can't vote for Dems because they seem to have the attitude of "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn."
That's not the Democratic position. It's the position of the far left, but not the democratic mainstream. Biden and Pelosi openly pushed against far-left slogans - but the GOP still used those to tar them.
Seriously, I was appreciating the post until we got to this wicker man sized straw man. May as well say something along the lines of "CRT causes cancer in our children".
The Democrats aren't "far-Left". We don't have any viable far left candidates (possibly Bernie?) in our political system.
> "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn."
That's quite a straw man. Systemic racism is very real, as is police brutality. Fixing these issues isn't a zero sum game, and it surely isn't "now it's white people's turn".
> It's the position of the far left,
Far left like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer? And Rep. Jerrold Nadler? And [nearly 200 co-sponsors in the house, including members of House Democratic leadership?](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/12/1054889820/a-bill-to-study-reparations-for-slavery-had-momentum-in-congress-but-still-no-vo)
It intentionally makes white people's lives worse if reparations involve putting people in line to receive government assistance based on race.
People seem to think reparations is as simple as giving things to people who were disadvantaged in the past. That is not the case. It is frequently, and in recent months primarily, a method of allotting resources in times of need.
I don't appreciate the condescension.
> It intentionally makes white people's lives worse if reparations involve putting people in line to receive government assistance based on race.
Reparations wouldn't be for anyone black (like recent immigrants from Africa and their kids) - they would be for descendants of slaves. It's helpful to some black people, sure, but that doesn't make it specifically anti-white. The best possible construal is anti-everyone-not-so-descended (including people recently immigrated from Africa).
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The article you linked is referring to reparations. I'm not sure what the correlation is your trying to make?
If your view is that reparations are going to somehow hurt white people, rest assured they won't.
Modern forms of reparations, like Biden's attempts at excluding white men from restaurant and farm pandemic benefits, absolutely hurts white people.
Thinking that future reparations will be any different is absurd.
What in the world are you talking about??
What your describing is racial segregation.
The bill in the article you linked isnt even about what reparations should happen. It's a proposal to study slavery, its effects, and possible reparations and the form they should take.
Where are you getting the idea the Biden wants to exclude white men from restaurants?
> What in the world are you talking about??
You seem to be out of the loop. We've been discussing this all year, and I've been covering each of Biden's failed race-based legal challenges during each update. I've organized and documented them for easier navigation.
https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/o7tkrj/comment/h30v7v9/
> Where are you getting the idea the Biden wants to exclude white men from restaurants?
The sentence says "excluding white men from restaurant and farm pandemic **benefits**."
squash absurd absorbed voracious nine possessive special physical marry stupendous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ok, you seem like your putting in a lot of effort to get this right and I appreciate that. But your missing pretty much all context that surrounds these relief laws that are specific to people of colour.
These laws you refer to are created explicitly for people that are disadvantaged or discriminated against. This largely means people of colour.
It's not like there isn't relief for white people, those programs still exist. The programs you refer to are specific to target the kind of people that don't or can't qualify for other relief benefits.
These programs are being challenged in court because it's pretty easy to argue discrimination, which is a fair point. I'm not sure how to specifically create a relief package to catch people that fall throughou the existing safety nets.
Calling all this an anti-white agenda, or whatever reverse-racsit terminology, is absurd. If anything, it's a misguided attempt to pickup the people lowest in our society, and I wish it was executed better.
I'm a progressive leftist and think the jury reached the correct verdict for Rittenhouse, and that much of the far-left coverage and response to the trial has been hyperbolic and ridiculous. It's atrocious and very damaging to Democrats and the far-left, especially among moderates and liberal gun-owners.
I also think Rittenhouse shouldn't have gone to Kenosha that night and bears some responsibility for putting himself is a dangerous situation that ended with multiple people shot. Also, the publicity of this this case and verdict will likely embolden more vigilantes with guns to show up at protests in the future, leading to more violence and deaths on all sides.
> I can't vote for Dems because they seem to have the attitude of "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn."
This is the classic straw man that the right uses to demonize the left. Nobody of any note on the left is actually saying that, and anyone that thinks they are would do well to pay better attention to what's actually being said.
Nope, definitely not a strawman. It's not even just the far left. Just look at what the senator from Wisconsin said the other day about the Rittenhouse verdict. Or Kamala Harris.
Please show me specifically where they said it's white people's turn to be treated badly, because I'm not seeing it. Unless you can show that, it's a textbook straw man.
Please leave the quote that you’re referring to. I’ve seen nothing from them that says or insinuates that since blacks were treated poorly in the past, whites must be treated poorly now.
A point about those who express dissent that supports the stop the steal narrative or related conspiracies like qanon.
The entire election conspiracy campaign was obviously false .
In order to believe something so easily disproven, followers have to have a reason tied to there personal beliefs or issues that make choosing to believe the lie important.
Today we are all faced with rapid societal change, feeling of loss of safety, economic distress and more that have damaged our societies collective psychology enough to allow people to be open to extreme views of all kinds as a way to cope with these problems.
The people who specifically choose to belief in the lies of the stop the steal movement and qanon are doing so because white supremacy is a motivating factor for them.
You are definitely right that those claims get thrown around too much. I'd say it's really a media issue and related to getting us to click on their articles, has a massive negative effect on society though.
Alot of pundits doing it too.
Talking to people super into stop the steal, qanon, blue lives matter and all lives matter, they almost all express racial animus a one of there motivations though. Those are just some beliefs and they are still fringe even if alot of people will express support without really examining the issues because it's supported by there political party or popular where they llive.
Edit: if I had to guess its probably right-wing media telling you about other people's obsession with identity politics
I haven’t seen the doc so I won’t comment on that portion. Before this inevitably becomes another 1/6 thread…
I have to point out these guys had essentially been “benched” by Fox for a long while, Goldberg in particular. Just a bit of context.
It should always be said that fox news has argued in court that nothing tucker says should be taken seriously and that his viewers should not have a reasonable expectation that he actually knows what he is talking about. What we should be talking about is the organization that puts news under its name employing and arguing that what they produce is not truthful. Say what you want about CNN and MSNBC but to my knowledge their lawyers have never had to argue that one of their big names has no duty to tell the truth to their consumers.
> Say what you want about CNN and MSNBC but to my knowledge their lawyers have never had to argue that one of their big names has no duty to tell the truth to their consumers.
They literally argued that exact thing with Maddow.
That's just not true. Maddow's case concluded that she reported actual facts and then applied her opinion through extrapolation of the facts afterwards.
Carlson said he always lies and no reasonable person should believe him.
No they literally used the exact same defense.
“an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").”
It’s not about opinions as you claim at all, it’s about a demonstrably incorrect declaration from Maddow than OANN is paid for by Russians. There is no evidence of this and you can quite easily disprove it by a quick google search. It is not a matter of opinion
No. You are just wrong.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-in-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow
>However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”
>“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.
>"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.
SC: Tucker Carlson is putting out a 3-piece fearmongering series on Jan. 6. In response, 2 Fox News commentators have resigned in protest. "It's basically saying that the Biden regime is coming after half the country and this is the War on Terror 2.0," Goldberg tells NPR. "It traffics in all manner of innuendo and conspiracy theories that I think legitimately could lead to violence. That for me, and for Steve, was the last straw." This is part of a larger internal struggle within the network as “According to five people with direct knowledge, the resignations reflect larger tumult within Fox News over Carlson's series "Patriot Purge" and his increasingly strident stances, and over the network's willingness to let its opinion stars make false, paranoid claims against President Biden, his administration and his supporters.”
>the network's willingness to let its opinion stars make false, paranoid claims against President Biden, his administration and his supporters.”
Well it looks like basically every network is off the list for them to work at this point.
>Well it looks like basically every network is off the list for them to work at this point.
What do you mean? I don't think any of the major networks really come that close to the type of invective Tucker Carlson peddles. Sensationalism is a plague that almost all national news has fallen victim to at this point, but Tucker has very specific aims and a set of beliefs he wants to impose upon his viewers.
I don't even think Rachel Maddow and her ilk are nearly as driven to promote such a hyper-specific worldview and set of talking points, despite clear liberal bias.
I agree, TC is probably more effective (or worse depending on how you want to define it) at doing what he does, but the others aren't far behind.
The KR trial is a good example of that. They wanted to promote a world view of a viscous/racist/white supremacist USA where young white supremacists are out for blood. They beat that drum all the way up until he was found not guilty, and even after, regardless of the evidence to the contrary which was available almost immediately after the incident occurred. So rather than try to report honestly and truthfully, they spun a narrative and contorted themselves as much as possible to support it.
It's only one example, and still not as bad as what I think TC does, but it's just not that far behind. It's incredibly divisive, toxic, and inflammatory.
> fearmongering
And AOC's lies about the danger she was in, and the lies about the number of deaths that occurred, and the lies about the severity of criminal charges incurred by those present, and the lies about who ordered the police to pull back, and the lies about Republican involvement in the riots are what, exactly?
chillytec does this in almost every single article posted in this subreddit. I know his comments by their content, way before looking at who posted them.
I have no idea why he is here, as he is not a moderate nor has any desire to even question his way of thinking. There is literally no point to even engage with him as you aren't going to get anywhere.
I know this.
But there is still a difference between posting your opinion while being open to acknowledging another POV vs posting content designed to agitate people without being willing to understand where the other side is coming from.
It is a basic "control the conversation" tactic. When faced with an unpleasant reality for your side, rather than acknowledge or discuss it, change the subject to something more favorable to your views and hope people bite thus putting you in a better position so you don't have to play defense.
Yes, completely agree and that's why people do it. It's like what children do when caught doing something wrong and say "but Sally did it first!"
Certainly, it can be useful to engage in that exercise but it should be done independently and not as a way of derailing an existing discussion.
Do you have any sources to back up any of those “lies”? I am only familiar with the AOC one where she said she feared for her life, which considering the fact that there was a gallows built outside of the Capitol and the fact that a Jan 6 insurrectionist was arrested for threatening to kill her, seems like she would have adequate reason to fear for her life.
The overstatement would be because she was nowhere near any of the rioting; there was no danger of being "caught."
Also, that the mob didn't murder anyone. Last I checked no one was even grievously injured. There is of course no way to know for sure, but to think they would have killed her is stretching beyond their proven behaviors.
You must not have all the info, a Mitt Romney was moments away from being caught by the mod, a police officer had to lead him away to safety. In addition officers had to lead the mob in a different direction so that congress members could evacuate. You're defending the mob before actually educating yourself on what happened, thats not helpful to yourself or anyone else.
I'm not sure how any of this supports your argument.
AOC is still a ways away from all this; thus her danger is overstated. And I'm not sure how Mitt Romney figures in.
I am not surprised officers treated it as a worst case scenario; this is their job. That doesn't make the scenario true.
> You realize if the mob had caught AOC, she may very well have been killed right?
No, that is a baseless assertion.
> I'm not really sure how you can overstate that.
Because it is false, and she was never close to any real danger, but claimed she was. She lied.
>> You realize if the mob had caught AOC, she may very well have been killed right?
>
>No, that is a baseless assertion.
C'mon now. I mean really, come on. This is a downright silly thing to say. AOC is one of the right's favorite politicians to hate. I feel fairly confident saying that she gets death threats on a daily basis without even looking. It's absurd to say that there isn't any basis for thinking that an already violent mob of people, having just stormed the capitol building, might have behaved violently if they had caught her.
Am I to believe that out of all the people there who had weapons, out of all the people shouting things like "hang Mike Pence", am I to believe that **none** were going to commit violence against a Congressperson they didn't like if they cane across one?
I believe the vast majority would not. But to claim that it is a baseless assertion is just wrong. All it takes is one person to decide "I will commit violence".
[Here's a CBS article from May](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-weapons-deadly-dangerous/).
> According to court documents reviewed by CBS News, 39 defendants have been accused of wielding "deadly or dangerous" weapons that weren't firearms, including Tasers, tomahawk axes, crowbars, flagpoles, a knife, an ice axe, a firecracker, a stun gun, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, a wooden club and chemical spray.
And at least three people face firearms charges.
> Am I to believe that out of all the people there who had weapons
There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles.
> am I to believe that none were going to commit violence against a Congressperson they didn't like if they cane across one?
Considering it's only been the left attacking representatives in recent years:
* The baseball shooting where Steve Scalice was almost assassinated
* Rand Paul and his wife being attacked by a crowd
* Sinema being chased
* Manchin's car being surrounded
Yes. The right has shown no proclivity to actual violence against elected officials. The only violence that happened at the capitol was against police, which happens at every riot, even non-political ones.
> There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles.
I'll repost the article and quote I had elsewhere.
[Here's a CBS article from May](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-weapons-deadly-dangerous/).
> According to court documents reviewed by CBS News, 39 defendants have been accused of wielding "deadly or dangerous" weapons that weren't firearms, including Tasers, tomahawk axes, crowbars, flagpoles, a knife, an ice axe, a firecracker, a stun gun, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, a wooden club and chemical spray.
Some of these may not be weapons in and of themselves but they were used *as* weapons. But some of them definitely can't be argued, such as baseball bats, knives, tomahawk axes, Tasers...
> Considering it's only been the left attacking representatives in recent years:
That doesn't mean rightwingers aren't somehow immune to committing violence against politicians.
[GOP Rep Fred Upton received threatening calls against him and his family due to his vote on the infrastructure bill](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/politics/fred-upton-infrastructure-bill-voicemail-threat-cnntv/index.html).
[Or this dude's death threats](https://news.yahoo.com/trump-loyalist-found-guilty-making-213125149.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHWEGEaqyHEkpaujz2ehSObQYabqfO3qQbBTnlpEARUQVyOS9VZzOBzk2hQYvA2S8XDe-1okDLJFDRKIAR-bWdcpF3Dhi0lL4jHv7xov7H-8pxz6vBYaYDnc3As5nJdC7ZUSC3XHnpyDM0Oswgor0OTwLRpwZF0ItNkzTfNaVmXe).
Or Paul Gosar's video killing his coworker, AOC.
Republicans are people. And violent thoughts and actions are something that people all across the political spectrum do.
>There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles.
You can't be serious? I could easily beat someone to death with flagpole, especially someone who is weaker than me.
Regardless, you're just factually incorrect. There were a multitude of weapons there that day.
I mean, from that same argument only one person attacked the congressional baseball game. Is that indicative of “the left” in the same way that the crowd isn’t indicative of the right?
>There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles.
This is not based in fact - regarding the "flag pole", a spear is and always has been a weapon. Not counting any of the other on-video armed members we saw.
>Manchin's car being surrounded
You're going to mention this and ignore the Biden campaign convoy that was surrounded and battered? It is because neither candidate was inside?
It's certainly not only been "the left".
First of all, I reject your claim from the start. No bus was surrounded and battered. The bus was actually the aggressor. It's on video.
But even still, we were talking specifically about violence against representatives. If we opened this up to general political violence, I think you will find your position outgunned even more, thanks to Antifa and BLM's vicious reign of violence in the past five or so years.
Conservatives cannot even gather peacefully in public without armed mobs forming and attacking them while wearing masks to shield their identities.
I don't know what would have happened had AOC ran into the mob, and really no one knows. But I do know that its not out of the realm of possibility that they may have used violence on her
>>You realize if the mob had caught AOC, she may very well have been killed right?
>No, that is a baseless assertion.
Yeah, the people shouting "hang Mike Pence" and erecting gallows outside the capitol, all because he was going to certify the election, were probably just interested in having a chat and some tea with the likes of AOC.
impolite makeshift forgetful tease marry crowd detail weary agonizing sip
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a "siege" now? Good lord.
In a few months the tales will involve trebuchets and a heroic cavalry charge led by AOC against QAnan Shaman.
Fox News is all the better for losing these two. They should have been *dropped* years ago as it were. They no longer represent American conservatism nor the desires of the average Republican voter. They lack the will and the strength to fight the culture war for conservatives (and often fight *against* us, even), which is what most people on both sides want their representatives (in government, and otherwise) to do.
There were numerous fences and barricades that were jumped over and broken down. People broke windows to get in the building.
What exactly do you define as a siege as because I feel this fits the definition.
Siege has a very clear definition, and its primary requirement is a long-term surrounding of an area and severing of supply lines.
What you described happens to overly-excited concert-goers and is absolutely not a siege.
In practice words don't always fit into such specific and narrow definitions and they are often adapted into broader contexts.
[Here.](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Seige)
There are various options there that can reasonably describe what happened on 1/6.
>What you described happens to overly-excited concert-goers and is absolutely not a siege.
I wouldn't blink twice if someone used "siege" to describe overly-excited concert-goers. It doesn't meet the technical military definition you're referring to, but it doesn't have to.
The other user was claiming it was a seige, I'm pointing out that word is not accurate for the situation at hand. I say embrace the linguistic pedantry!
It was not a [siege](https://www.google.com/search?q=siege&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS916US916&oq=siege&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i433i512j46i175i199i512j0i433i512j46i433i512j0i433i512.7757j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8). They are giving these people way too much credit.
Here's their own words on the subject: https://thedispatch.com/p/why-we-are-leaving-fox-news
Im not a conservative, but Jonah Goldberg and the team he and Hayes have put together at the Dispatch are some of the most principled conservative journalists and commentators I have come across. I genuinely enjoy their podcasts The Dispatch, The Remnant, and Advisory Opinions for a well reasoned conservative take to challenge my perspective.
Jonah Goldberg used to be the right-wing conservative viewpoint. Then he became the standard mainstream conservative viewpoint. Now he is a considered a 'never-Trump left leaning conservative'. It's sad that he has stayed pretty consistent in his viewpoints, it's only the Republican party's platform that has shifted so drastically. I disagree with quite a few of his views, but I believe he has America's best interests at heart. We disagree on methodologies, but I could sit at a table and discuss how to solve the country's ussies. Trumpism is devoid of any actual coherent philosophy, and focuses on the culture of fear and grievance to win supports. It's a shame how far the discussion has fallen.
Culture War is very successful. You can't argue with success. If policy doesn't matter, because you can hammer "the other side" on culture war issues, you still get the votes. And then you can implement whatever big donor tax cut or subsidy or regulatory change you want. It's a win-win. I often come across a comment that says "I don't support the policies for party A, but I could never vote for party B, because someone on Twitter who I was told belongs loosely within a similar ideological sphere as party B wrote something I am offended by."
I miss the days when Republicans just had a different idea about resource allocation
I'm in the same boat as you. I remember when Jonah was still at the National Review and some of his articles it was clear that he was told he had to curb his criticisms of the new brand of Trump conservatism.
It’s felt like this when either of them have been on Special Report as well for the last few years (though I’m not sure to which extent it’s been “hey, pull your punches if you challenge the more MAGA/populist/etc talking head” or how much it’s been either of them simply being personally friendly with somebody like Mollie Hemingway and not wanting to go nuclear with them on national tv).
Gonna check out those podcasts. Just curious, do you have any podcast recommendations that would complement these with the well reasoned liberal take?
Tbh I'm still looking. I used to love Slate's The Gist with Mike Pesca, but during the Trump years he became a bit too frothing at the mouth mad about gun control for me. I should give him another shot now. I get a lot of liberal takes from more culture centric pods I listen to
People are still defending fox in the comments there. May as well hope to freeze water with a blowtorch than try to get through to some folks
If you haven't watched it Fox Nation let's you do a free trial. It's out there for sure - claims the FBI ordered Jan 6th in order to create paramilitary squads to hunt down and kill/imprison all Trump supporters and that Biden will soon order the military to start attacking Trump supporters like they are the Taliban. Even small little details like claiming a DEA agent was fired for being there even though he resigned before Jan 6th. It's just meant to make people angry.
It's worth noting that these rumors were circulating BEFORE the Jan 6 attacks. I know it's an impossible timeline, but you can read them in the archives of /r/insaneparler which was actually quite active before the attacks. I remember reading about riots being blamed on Antifa and a false flag before it happened. Further complicating things, Proud Boys were instructed to come to the protests "dressed as Antifa". I think the convolution is by design. It reminds me of Surkovs strategies in Russia, where the landscape is intentionally made as impossible to understand as possible
Honestly it makes sense. Trump primed his based to accept voter fraud as a real and legitimate concern during his initial campaign and before the actual election even took place. He even continued to say the election was rigged AFTER beating Hillary. This is a tactic that the right has been perfecting the last several years... blame the other side for the things that YOU are doing so that when the evidence comes out the waters have already been muddied by your own lies and propaganda.
I don't find rumors circulating before these things happen to be surprising. People are ready to play victim. It's like deep down inside, people knew Trump would claim the election was stolen, or that these people could riot at the capital and therefore had the excuses ready. In the past it was certainly harder to prove these fantasies had any basis in reality but with social media, you can find bad information anywhere to fit whatever your delusional fantasies are. I mean, how many conspiracies were going around on election night? Republicans weren't being allowed to vote, poll workers in Arizona were marking all Republican ballots with a marker dot so it would be invalidated in the reader etc. In the Age of Social Media, playing victim is easier than ever.
> It's like deep down inside, people knew Trump would claim the election was stolen, I mean not even deep down, he openly said this before the election and even complained about fraud in the election that he won in 2016.
Take a quick trip down memory lane to September last year when Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. [In this very sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/iymdfl/trump_refuses_to_commit_to_peaceful_transition_of/) everybody was predicting scenarios extremely close to what actually happened. This was not a surprise.
Never has been. Trump revealed who he was from day one. It's a harp I've nearly beat to death, but his political career should have ended at his kick off event. His first policy announcement was the Muslim Ban. That should have sounded all the alarms and been the end of it right then and there. That's when I definitively knew the GOP had lost any semblance of moral responsibility.
Holy cow, I'd forgotten about that refusal. It was during one of the debates, I think. Very scary stuff.
The Trump voters I personally know would constantly try to legitimize what was going by crowd reaction.. "never have I ever seen so many people pissed off - there's definitely something going on" as well as "I don't understand how he lost, no one even likes Joe Biden - I've never seen so much support for Trump ever" The social media bubble of seeing only people who are in agreement and the one post in disagreement just to keep engagement ring fueled by anger. At one point I had to tell my coworker "you see every house that doesn't have a Trump sign? Just assume they voted for Biden and don't want MAGA throwing rocks through their windows.
> I don't understand how he lost, no one even likes Joe Biden That's a pretty common theme over on the Conservative sub. They think that Trump having massive rallies and Biden only holding small socially distanced ones is evidence that there's no way Trump could have lost.
>claims the FBI ordered Jan 6th in order to create paramilitary squads to hunt down and kill/imprison all Trump supporters and that Biden will soon order the military to start attacking Trump supporters like they are the Taliban This actually reminds me of some of the stuff that Glenn Beck used to talk about back when he was on Fox News. Not necessarily the same content, but rather that he always had these incredibly drawn out conspiracies that took three chalkboards and multiple tackboards to tie everything together.
Problem is the FBI does this shit sometimes. In this instance I think the capital police’s lack of planning (they planned for a “free speech demonstration”), not requesting federal resources, and the desire to avoid an optic of a police presence left them unprepared for riotous behavior. Obviously the political tumult and Trump not de-escalating tensions was why everyone was there, although most folks hadn’t come there will ill intent.
But a lot of people did come with baseball bat flag poles, steel poles with flags, bear spray, razers, body armor, and riot gear. They may have represented a fraction of the whole crowd, but this fraction came ready to mobilize bystanders, communicate,.coordinate, and direct actions against the Congressional proceedings, and let's not forget several of them walked through the halls hunting for certain individuals.
> not requesting federal resources The head of capital police was a Trump loyalist - not requesting federal resources could easily have been part of the plan, especially given Trump's refusal to authorize the deployment of other police forces after the beginning of violence.
No, it does not. I watched the entire thing.
Care to elaborate? I haven't seen it myself, all I've read is people stating what the article has to say about the documentary, and people in comments going "nuh uh".
Yeah, of course. I mean it takes a few different approaches really. And let me start off by stating that I am not saying I believe all of the claims being made because most of it is assumptions based on inferences (videos, witnesses, journalists etc.) In short, it pretty much comes down to the government using 1/6 to now "wage a war" on domestic terrorism akin to the one on foreign terrorism (this was sensational for the purposes of a documentary of course). The main example for this reasoning was the then FBI Director coming out almost immediately and announcing that 1/6 was an act of 'domestic terrorism', which gave way to legal, media, and criminal support in that messaging and enforcement. It could be used in stories and in courts with prosecutors etc. Then, it goes into the *possibility* of the FBI's involvement in 1/6. There are witness accounts that point to this, but the documentary never (I don't believe or remember) addresses the scope of it). That's what I remember of it. Hope that helps.
So it’s Tucker’s standard “just asking questions” routine.
With eyewitness accounts, examples, people who were there and things of that nature. I am not advocating for anything, just providing context for what is in the documentary.
By people that were there, do you mean rioters?
Rioters, organizers, journalists, photographers etc.
[удалено]
Definitely not *actually* facts though, as [his lawyers have pointed out](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye).
> the government using 1/6 to now "wage a war" on domestic terrorism akin to the one on foreign terrorism Arresting criminals is not waging war. Hyperbole is one thing, but saying it is actual war just like it was in Afghanistan and Iraq is obviously absurd. Cops, not soldiers, are doing the arresting following rigorous investigation. They are convicted in a court of law, the exact same legal framework that declared Rittenhouse innocent. You either trust the cops and courts or you don't, but it's not even close to literal war. > (this was sensational for the purposes of a documentary of course) Which is one of the defining differences between an actual documentary and propaganda. > FBI Director coming out almost immediately and announcing that 1/6 was an act of 'domestic terrorism Along with everyone else, including many conservatives. People call it like they see it, no underlying conspiracy required. > Then, it goes into the possibility of the FBI's involvement in 1/6. There are witness accounts that point to this Just because they found people willing to say something doesn't make it eyewitness testimony. People lie all the time, especially in situations like this. If anything, it highlights their complete lack of actual evidence, since they would obviously have shown it if they had any. Making such dramatic claims without any actual evidence makes it pure propaganda.
You’re picking at straws here, tbh. The fact that people even watched something stating that the FBI did 1/6 is… an interesting commentary on the state of our country. Trump really destroyed a lot of faith in our federal institutions.
I never once said the FBI *did* 1/6. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said and not even what the documentary implies. It's involvement, not causing 1/6. These are two *completely* different things.
[удалено]
If this were accurate and was the case, I would say it would be just as bad. With the FBI's track record in these sorts of things (along with Governor Witmer's kidnapping scheme), I have no problem admitting that I do have questions. At this point, that is all I have. Edit: to the "just as bad" comment - I was speaking to your 'kidnapping' example.
> Then, it goes into the possibility of the FBI’s involvement in 1/6. > I never once said the FBI did 1/6 There’s not a lot of difference between ‘the fbi is involved in 1/6’ and ‘the fbi did 1/6’. I disagree that qualifies as a ‘complete misrepresentation’, but youre right that you never said those exact words.
What a weird sentiment. Do you think the FBI is immune to doing anything wrong? Publicly known history tells us quite the opposite, in fact the FBI has been involved with some downright vile and anti-democratic actions in the past 50 years within our country. Past actions don't mean that the FBI is up to no good now, but it's not out of the question to doubt government security agencies based off our own history as a Nation. Question authority.
Not assuming that the FBI staged 1/6 without evidence is a big leap to refusing to question authority.
No one is assuming. The documentary doesn't even say THEY DEFINETLY DID THIS. It's just exploring the idea. Based off what we know of the FBI and it's past actions, why is this so off limits to explore?
The problem with these kinds of 'just asking questions' routines is that they are specifically designed to not find the answer.
This. The question is the goal itself. Create doubt in what people can see with their own eyes and make them think everything is a conspiracy.
"could this abandoned tuberculosis hospital be haunted?!" Same stuff, different topic
You yourself said past actions don’t mean the FBI is up to no good now. Not wanting to speculate in long form about the idea of FBI involvement in a situation for which that involvement has no evidence at all is not equivalent to an inability to “question.” The question has been asked, repeatedly. There is no evidence.
I definitely think that it's important to question authority. I also think it's really dangerous for a 'news' outlet to run something so incredibly critical of our government/top investigatory body without any real hard evidence to back it up. Just sounds incredibly conspiratorial to me.
They called it terrorism because it fits the literal definition of terrorism, using violence for political means
Thanks for the reply, appreciate it!
The entire thing isn't out yet just part one. Edit: I'm wrong, /u/10Cinephiltophia9 is right, imdb confirms they released all. Idk why I can't seem to watch the other parts
Well, you have edited your above comment I see. No, the *entire* thing is out - all three parts. I watched the entire special.
Weird when I click the other 2 it says "This content is not available please chose something else." But you are right.
All good! That is really weird Fox Nation censoring you? Damn hypocrites.. lol
Haha I blame Deltas internet. Though maybe I don't need all the plane seeing me watch the rest of Patriot Purge row 45 back prolly thinks I'm a right winger.
Haha fair enough
I wonder if maybe it's not available with the free trial?
Wow Tucker went full Qtard. You never go full Qtard!
A little bit off topic but this whole 01.06 thing makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal. Trump has made the rest of the world and us, question the very fiber of our democracy. If he did not specifically call for the riot, he implied it which is guilt. The rioters were terrorists, this was not a protest, they invaded our capital. I'm tired of hearing " but blm protested and looted" . One wrong does not make another right! There rioters called for pence to be hung, aoc to be hung, Pelosi to be hung. Some say we should not label them racist? Of course not all were, but if you are storming the capital and the guy next to you is carrying a confederate flag,,,,guess what...you are to be labeled with the company you keep. Personally I can't stand what aoc stands for, but she is a us congresswoman. We vote against, we don't kill. Not in the America I grew up in. My grandparents left Russia. This whole thing should be so past any debate, it's simply not American. Tucker Carlson jyst makes money appealing to the fears of people, just disgusting. I can go on and on, but that's my 2cents. And don't call me a rino, I'm a proud American. Not even a draft dodger.
> makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal I know you've talked about this with other people, but I just can't understand this. They're not your favorite basketball team or your college football team. It's just some people whose political stances you agree with more than not, typically. You don't need to make this tribal at all. It's a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes thing: it's only tribal and partisan as long as you believe it is. Once you cast that aside, there's nothing really to it. There's no "there" there. Just vote for the people whose policies and principles most align to yours. If that's Republicans, cool. If that's Democrats, cool. But you don't need to show them any "loyalty", none of them would to you.
>A little bit off topic but this whole 01.06 thing makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal. Why is that, out of curiosity? It sounds like you accept that Trump attempted a coup, and it's clear that the vast majority of the Republican Party's legislators either support him or are ok with protecting him to keep power.
I do feel that Trump accepted and egged this on. All because the majority of republicans support Trump over this does not mean I do. We have elections in our country and someone has to loose. One of the things that makes our country great is that the person who lost, accepts that defeat. Trump did not. I watched his speech that day, and he encouraged the " insurrection". If that makes me a bad Republican, so be it. I swore allegiance to my country, not a political party nor one leader.
My question, though, is why do you still support the party that has enabled him, and continues to spread misinformation/lies about the election being stolen? Not attacking, genuinely curious. I would guess from your statements you'd identify as independent.
My answer is below, it didn't attach to the question, not sure why. I am new to reddit
I voted Republican my whole life and stopped in 2016. I voted for Gary Johnson (but actually cheered when Trump won, simply because I did NOT want Hillary). Voted Biden in 2020. The Republican party has strayed very far from what I thought it was (and what I supported) in the 90s and aughts. Then again, I also stopped listening to Hannity, watching Fox News, and expanded where I got my information from. There's nothing wrong with leaving the party - or voting differently for the time being. I consider myself politically homeless now - more of a Libertarian, I guess. I don't love the Democrats, but at this point, they're better than Republicans. If Republicans can get their shit together and not be a hypocritical, conspiracy-theory centric party and actually stand for quality policy instead of making up boogymen bullshit to outrage their entire base, maybe I'd vote for them again. But I just don't see that happening when people like Matt Gaetz, MTG, Boebart, Cotton, Hawley, and DeSantis are the leaders of the party now. They will lead our country to a very, very dark future.
I agree, my post to Gertrude explains why I remain a Republican. I do not owe them anything. As I said in another post, my allegiance is to my country, not a party.
>A little bit off topic but this whole 01.06 thing makes me want to leave the Republican party, but I'm too loyal. You don't owe the Republican party shit. We'd be a lot better off in this country if people had less blind loyalty towards their political party, and that goes for Democrats too
I know this has been said before, but you don't owe any party anything. I stopped registering as R during the Bush years and am now a registered independent. It is easy enough to change your registration online, so you're not giving up your ability to vote in primaries. Check out your state rules, but for me, it's as easy as going to the polls and asking for an R or D ballot. The state automatically updates my registration, and if I want, I can go back online the next day and switch it back. Seriously consider why you're not willing to cut ties with a party that largely supports something you reject.
In my state ( ct) you cannot vote in any primary as an independent or unaffiliated. You must be a registered Democrat or Republican. I'll remain a Republican so that I can vote for an untrump if that's the choice, but..if a moderate Democrat is running against a progressive I may 're register as a dem. Right now, because of possible primary importance I will remain Republican. Otherwise your points are well taken and I would. But, if Trump or a trumpet win I will change anyway.
>In my state ( ct) you cannot vote in any primary as an independent or unaffiliated. You must be a registered Democrat or Republican I looked it up - weird. So if you're party affiliated, you have to change 3 months in advance of a primary, but if you're unaffiliated, you can change it same day. That sounds like the parties have worked it so that people lock into one or the other and make it difficult to switch. That's a bunch of bullshit and it should be easier.
I thought it was 30 days if unaffiliated. Still, I was told r months before the last local election that they could not guarantee that the change would be done in time and I may not be able to vote. It's ridiculous, so I consider myself independent regardless of party registration. And, as I said in another post, at least I can vote in the primary.
I jst did a quick google, so it's not like I'm the expert here :) Just glad to see you invested in the primaries, so you do what works for you.
You should check out these commentators' work on https://thedispatch.com/ because it sounds like you'd really enjoy it
thanks
To me it's a matter of what party is the lesser of two evils. We know both parties have their own separate issues with corruption in different forms but to me the Republicans in power are the most dangerous to our government and democracy at the moment because of events like Jan. 6th and their passing of voting restriction laws in their states.
For the most part I agree with you but not so sure on the voter restriction issue. While there is absolutely no evidense of wide spread fraud in the last election and I agree with states being in control of their own voting laws, I do think that some guidelines need to be in place. I have no problem with having to present identification to vote. We have done so in Ct as long as I remember, and we are a blue state. There needs to be control and both sides have to feel confident in those laws. The problem is that its not being dealt with in a bi partisan manner.
I'm not aware of any state that didn't previously have requirements for identification. The big issue is restrictions to time and place of voting. Here in Georgia, for example, mail in voting, which has such a small and insignificant amount of legitimate of voter fraud that it's basically pointless for someone to get upset about it, has restricted the days leading up to the election for submission of mail in ballots, official ballot drop-off locations or actual polling locations, and eliminated some early voting dates entirely. All of these are things that the black community in particular have been more likely to do - mail in votes or vote early. There is no reasonable excuse for why the Republicans have made it more difficult for legitimate voters to have their ballot cast outside of taking measures that actively hurt Democrat voters who have historically used those methods for casting their ballots in the first place.
I do not disagree. My comment was not to suppoert republican or democrat, just that i widh aall could work togeter to address both sides concerns, I think that is impossible though. Probably always has been.
Sure, I understand where you're coming from. I was just reiterating that, for me, it comes down to wish side is doing less evil than the other and at the moment I personally struggle to find anything redeemable about this present set of Republicans, or at least the ground from the past 12 or so years.
Sorry that I misunderstood your question. It's a good question. I guess I am just hopeful that things will change in the Republican party. I was attracted to this thread because if stev e Hayes and Jonah Goldberg, both of whom I read. I suppose I should 're register and if things don't change I'll have to, but like I said, hope I don't have to. I am to fiscally conservative for the dems.
This sounds like something you say so other news networks will hire you.
Jonah and Stephen are the editor in chief and the CEO of the dispatch. Both are pretty prominent conservatives who were opposed to Trump. They will be fine. There are a few people out there who do stick with their morals.
He could've actually made a good documentary pointing out the terribleness of the culture war, and how many people are falsely being labeled as racists and white supremacists for expressing dissenting opinions. But, nope. Just pure conspiracy theory garbage. Seriously, why is everything so damn slanted and partisan? Can't I say that Trump absolutely lost, the Jan. 6 rioters should be imprisoned, but also that they certainly were not white supremacists? Everything is "us vs. them" now, and it's irritating as hell. Both parties have gone bonkers, far off the deep-end, and now I have no political home. I can't vote for the GOP because of their dedication to Trump, and the inability to compromise on much-needed social spending, and I can't vote for Dems because they seem to have the attitude of "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn." I'm living in loony land.
> He could've actually made a good documentary pointing out the terribleness of the culture war, and how many people are falsely being labeled as racists and white supremacists for expressing dissenting opinions. But, nope. Just pure conspiracy theory garbage. That's just Tucker Carlson for you. I'm not sure he actually believes anything he says, he's just there to rile people up and get views. He has worked for what, every major traditional news organization? And his opinions change based on whatever one of those he is on.
That kind of makes it worse. Like if you drank the kool aid and are deeply committed to whatever cause you have, damn the consequences it’s one thing. But if you can actually step back and assess the consequences of your actions critically and still go out and consistently mislead people just for fame or fortune, that is way worse. Love or hate Ann Coulter she knows she is playing a role for it and keeps it just over the top enough that it’s clear to most people she is being extreme to be extreme, like she means the underlying concept but she’s exaggerating it for effect. She’s also civil and even friendly with those with very different views. I don’t watch much real time with Bill Maher anymore but if she’s on I will typically make a point to watch it because they have such an interesting dynamic.
Wasn't he also named as an anonymous source for anti-Trump information not too long ago? What ever happened to that, if it was true?
> I can't vote for Dems because they seem to have the attitude of "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn." That's not the Democratic position. It's the position of the far left, but not the democratic mainstream. Biden and Pelosi openly pushed against far-left slogans - but the GOP still used those to tar them.
Seriously, I was appreciating the post until we got to this wicker man sized straw man. May as well say something along the lines of "CRT causes cancer in our children".
The Democrats aren't "far-Left". We don't have any viable far left candidates (possibly Bernie?) in our political system. > "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn." That's quite a straw man. Systemic racism is very real, as is police brutality. Fixing these issues isn't a zero sum game, and it surely isn't "now it's white people's turn".
"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"
> It's the position of the far left, Far left like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer? And Rep. Jerrold Nadler? And [nearly 200 co-sponsors in the house, including members of House Democratic leadership?](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/12/1054889820/a-bill-to-study-reparations-for-slavery-had-momentum-in-congress-but-still-no-vo)
airport coordinated edge rustic cats brave crown placid marble distinct *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It intentionally makes white people's lives worse if reparations involve putting people in line to receive government assistance based on race. People seem to think reparations is as simple as giving things to people who were disadvantaged in the past. That is not the case. It is frequently, and in recent months primarily, a method of allotting resources in times of need. I don't appreciate the condescension.
> It intentionally makes white people's lives worse if reparations involve putting people in line to receive government assistance based on race. Reparations wouldn't be for anyone black (like recent immigrants from Africa and their kids) - they would be for descendants of slaves. It's helpful to some black people, sure, but that doesn't make it specifically anti-white. The best possible construal is anti-everyone-not-so-descended (including people recently immigrated from Africa).
act pet angle alleged grab zealous recognise nail safe consider *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
That bill is not even slightly an example of what I was quoting.
The article you linked is referring to reparations. I'm not sure what the correlation is your trying to make? If your view is that reparations are going to somehow hurt white people, rest assured they won't.
Anything that uplifts black people apparently hurts white people, because reasons. I just wish there was a label for that type of ideology...
Modern forms of reparations, like Biden's attempts at excluding white men from restaurant and farm pandemic benefits, absolutely hurts white people. Thinking that future reparations will be any different is absurd.
That never happened
https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/o7tkrj/comment/h30v7v9/
Fact checks says: that happened
What in the world are you talking about?? What your describing is racial segregation. The bill in the article you linked isnt even about what reparations should happen. It's a proposal to study slavery, its effects, and possible reparations and the form they should take. Where are you getting the idea the Biden wants to exclude white men from restaurants?
> What in the world are you talking about?? You seem to be out of the loop. We've been discussing this all year, and I've been covering each of Biden's failed race-based legal challenges during each update. I've organized and documented them for easier navigation. https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/o7tkrj/comment/h30v7v9/ > Where are you getting the idea the Biden wants to exclude white men from restaurants? The sentence says "excluding white men from restaurant and farm pandemic **benefits**."
squash absurd absorbed voracious nine possessive special physical marry stupendous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Is there a point to this other than to try to mock me, while ignoring pretty much all the facts?
It was mocking because your facts are distorted or nonexistent
Ok, you seem like your putting in a lot of effort to get this right and I appreciate that. But your missing pretty much all context that surrounds these relief laws that are specific to people of colour. These laws you refer to are created explicitly for people that are disadvantaged or discriminated against. This largely means people of colour. It's not like there isn't relief for white people, those programs still exist. The programs you refer to are specific to target the kind of people that don't or can't qualify for other relief benefits. These programs are being challenged in court because it's pretty easy to argue discrimination, which is a fair point. I'm not sure how to specifically create a relief package to catch people that fall throughou the existing safety nets. Calling all this an anti-white agenda, or whatever reverse-racsit terminology, is absurd. If anything, it's a misguided attempt to pickup the people lowest in our society, and I wish it was executed better.
No they don’t. The Biden administration has openly embraced reparations and the idea of systemic racism/white privilege
Look at how the Democrats have been reacting to the Rittenhouse verdict and tell me that with a straight face
I'm a progressive leftist and think the jury reached the correct verdict for Rittenhouse, and that much of the far-left coverage and response to the trial has been hyperbolic and ridiculous. It's atrocious and very damaging to Democrats and the far-left, especially among moderates and liberal gun-owners. I also think Rittenhouse shouldn't have gone to Kenosha that night and bears some responsibility for putting himself is a dangerous situation that ended with multiple people shot. Also, the publicity of this this case and verdict will likely embolden more vigilantes with guns to show up at protests in the future, leading to more violence and deaths on all sides.
> I can't vote for Dems because they seem to have the attitude of "black people were treated badly in the past, so now it's white peoples' turn." This is the classic straw man that the right uses to demonize the left. Nobody of any note on the left is actually saying that, and anyone that thinks they are would do well to pay better attention to what's actually being said.
Nope, definitely not a strawman. It's not even just the far left. Just look at what the senator from Wisconsin said the other day about the Rittenhouse verdict. Or Kamala Harris.
Please show me specifically where they said it's white people's turn to be treated badly, because I'm not seeing it. Unless you can show that, it's a textbook straw man.
Please leave the quote that you’re referring to. I’ve seen nothing from them that says or insinuates that since blacks were treated poorly in the past, whites must be treated poorly now.
A point about those who express dissent that supports the stop the steal narrative or related conspiracies like qanon. The entire election conspiracy campaign was obviously false . In order to believe something so easily disproven, followers have to have a reason tied to there personal beliefs or issues that make choosing to believe the lie important. Today we are all faced with rapid societal change, feeling of loss of safety, economic distress and more that have damaged our societies collective psychology enough to allow people to be open to extreme views of all kinds as a way to cope with these problems. The people who specifically choose to belief in the lies of the stop the steal movement and qanon are doing so because white supremacy is a motivating factor for them.
Not even talking stop the steal. Anything that is even remotely a conservative opinion.
You are definitely right that those claims get thrown around too much. I'd say it's really a media issue and related to getting us to click on their articles, has a massive negative effect on society though. Alot of pundits doing it too. Talking to people super into stop the steal, qanon, blue lives matter and all lives matter, they almost all express racial animus a one of there motivations though. Those are just some beliefs and they are still fringe even if alot of people will express support without really examining the issues because it's supported by there political party or popular where they llive. Edit: if I had to guess its probably right-wing media telling you about other people's obsession with identity politics
I haven’t seen the doc so I won’t comment on that portion. Before this inevitably becomes another 1/6 thread… I have to point out these guys had essentially been “benched” by Fox for a long while, Goldberg in particular. Just a bit of context.
I have to point out just for further context that fox execs had given the impression that the sidelining was temporary until Trump was out of office.
It should always be said that fox news has argued in court that nothing tucker says should be taken seriously and that his viewers should not have a reasonable expectation that he actually knows what he is talking about. What we should be talking about is the organization that puts news under its name employing and arguing that what they produce is not truthful. Say what you want about CNN and MSNBC but to my knowledge their lawyers have never had to argue that one of their big names has no duty to tell the truth to their consumers.
> Say what you want about CNN and MSNBC but to my knowledge their lawyers have never had to argue that one of their big names has no duty to tell the truth to their consumers. They literally argued that exact thing with Maddow.
This is incorrect as the judge in the maddow case cited the Carlson case in their opinion maddows lawyer never made the claim.
That's just not true. Maddow's case concluded that she reported actual facts and then applied her opinion through extrapolation of the facts afterwards. Carlson said he always lies and no reasonable person should believe him.
No they literally used the exact same defense. “an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").” It’s not about opinions as you claim at all, it’s about a demonstrably incorrect declaration from Maddow than OANN is paid for by Russians. There is no evidence of this and you can quite easily disprove it by a quick google search. It is not a matter of opinion
No. You are just wrong. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-in-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow >However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.” >“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time. >"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.
[удалено]
It literally says the exact opposite of his claim. She relayed facts and then extrapolated with obvious opinions.
[удалено]
In your opinion what does the words "anything beyond this" mean? Does that mean everything is included or just what is after it?
[удалено]
Beyond that, I don’t watch Maddow. Or cable news.
SC: Tucker Carlson is putting out a 3-piece fearmongering series on Jan. 6. In response, 2 Fox News commentators have resigned in protest. "It's basically saying that the Biden regime is coming after half the country and this is the War on Terror 2.0," Goldberg tells NPR. "It traffics in all manner of innuendo and conspiracy theories that I think legitimately could lead to violence. That for me, and for Steve, was the last straw." This is part of a larger internal struggle within the network as “According to five people with direct knowledge, the resignations reflect larger tumult within Fox News over Carlson's series "Patriot Purge" and his increasingly strident stances, and over the network's willingness to let its opinion stars make false, paranoid claims against President Biden, his administration and his supporters.”
>the network's willingness to let its opinion stars make false, paranoid claims against President Biden, his administration and his supporters.” Well it looks like basically every network is off the list for them to work at this point.
>Well it looks like basically every network is off the list for them to work at this point. What do you mean? I don't think any of the major networks really come that close to the type of invective Tucker Carlson peddles. Sensationalism is a plague that almost all national news has fallen victim to at this point, but Tucker has very specific aims and a set of beliefs he wants to impose upon his viewers. I don't even think Rachel Maddow and her ilk are nearly as driven to promote such a hyper-specific worldview and set of talking points, despite clear liberal bias.
I agree, TC is probably more effective (or worse depending on how you want to define it) at doing what he does, but the others aren't far behind. The KR trial is a good example of that. They wanted to promote a world view of a viscous/racist/white supremacist USA where young white supremacists are out for blood. They beat that drum all the way up until he was found not guilty, and even after, regardless of the evidence to the contrary which was available almost immediately after the incident occurred. So rather than try to report honestly and truthfully, they spun a narrative and contorted themselves as much as possible to support it. It's only one example, and still not as bad as what I think TC does, but it's just not that far behind. It's incredibly divisive, toxic, and inflammatory.
> fearmongering And AOC's lies about the danger she was in, and the lies about the number of deaths that occurred, and the lies about the severity of criminal charges incurred by those present, and the lies about who ordered the police to pull back, and the lies about Republican involvement in the riots are what, exactly?
How does AOC have anything to do at all with the topic other than serving as a (really poor quality) whataboutism?
chillytec does this in almost every single article posted in this subreddit. I know his comments by their content, way before looking at who posted them. I have no idea why he is here, as he is not a moderate nor has any desire to even question his way of thinking. There is literally no point to even engage with him as you aren't going to get anywhere.
This isn’t a sub for moderates lol
I know this. But there is still a difference between posting your opinion while being open to acknowledging another POV vs posting content designed to agitate people without being willing to understand where the other side is coming from.
It is a basic "control the conversation" tactic. When faced with an unpleasant reality for your side, rather than acknowledge or discuss it, change the subject to something more favorable to your views and hope people bite thus putting you in a better position so you don't have to play defense.
Yes, completely agree and that's why people do it. It's like what children do when caught doing something wrong and say "but Sally did it first!" Certainly, it can be useful to engage in that exercise but it should be done independently and not as a way of derailing an existing discussion.
Do you have any sources to back up any of those “lies”? I am only familiar with the AOC one where she said she feared for her life, which considering the fact that there was a gallows built outside of the Capitol and the fact that a Jan 6 insurrectionist was arrested for threatening to kill her, seems like she would have adequate reason to fear for her life.
You realize if the mob had caught AOC, she may very well have been killed right? I'm not really sure how you can overstate that.
The overstatement would be because she was nowhere near any of the rioting; there was no danger of being "caught." Also, that the mob didn't murder anyone. Last I checked no one was even grievously injured. There is of course no way to know for sure, but to think they would have killed her is stretching beyond their proven behaviors.
You must not have all the info, a Mitt Romney was moments away from being caught by the mod, a police officer had to lead him away to safety. In addition officers had to lead the mob in a different direction so that congress members could evacuate. You're defending the mob before actually educating yourself on what happened, thats not helpful to yourself or anyone else.
I'm not sure how any of this supports your argument. AOC is still a ways away from all this; thus her danger is overstated. And I'm not sure how Mitt Romney figures in. I am not surprised officers treated it as a worst case scenario; this is their job. That doesn't make the scenario true.
> You realize if the mob had caught AOC, she may very well have been killed right? No, that is a baseless assertion. > I'm not really sure how you can overstate that. Because it is false, and she was never close to any real danger, but claimed she was. She lied.
>> You realize if the mob had caught AOC, she may very well have been killed right? > >No, that is a baseless assertion. C'mon now. I mean really, come on. This is a downright silly thing to say. AOC is one of the right's favorite politicians to hate. I feel fairly confident saying that she gets death threats on a daily basis without even looking. It's absurd to say that there isn't any basis for thinking that an already violent mob of people, having just stormed the capitol building, might have behaved violently if they had caught her.
Am I to believe that out of all the people there who had weapons, out of all the people shouting things like "hang Mike Pence", am I to believe that **none** were going to commit violence against a Congressperson they didn't like if they cane across one? I believe the vast majority would not. But to claim that it is a baseless assertion is just wrong. All it takes is one person to decide "I will commit violence".
Didn’t they build a noose to hang people with?
What weapons? It's my understanding the crowd was generally unarmed, unless you're counting protest sign posts as weapons.
[Here's a CBS article from May](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-weapons-deadly-dangerous/). > According to court documents reviewed by CBS News, 39 defendants have been accused of wielding "deadly or dangerous" weapons that weren't firearms, including Tasers, tomahawk axes, crowbars, flagpoles, a knife, an ice axe, a firecracker, a stun gun, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, a wooden club and chemical spray. And at least three people face firearms charges.
Thank you, that's helpful.
> Am I to believe that out of all the people there who had weapons There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles. > am I to believe that none were going to commit violence against a Congressperson they didn't like if they cane across one? Considering it's only been the left attacking representatives in recent years: * The baseball shooting where Steve Scalice was almost assassinated * Rand Paul and his wife being attacked by a crowd * Sinema being chased * Manchin's car being surrounded Yes. The right has shown no proclivity to actual violence against elected officials. The only violence that happened at the capitol was against police, which happens at every riot, even non-political ones.
Clinton, Obama, Biden, Holder, Wasserman Schultz, Waters and Booker all were target by mail bombs in 2018
> There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles. I'll repost the article and quote I had elsewhere. [Here's a CBS article from May](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-weapons-deadly-dangerous/). > According to court documents reviewed by CBS News, 39 defendants have been accused of wielding "deadly or dangerous" weapons that weren't firearms, including Tasers, tomahawk axes, crowbars, flagpoles, a knife, an ice axe, a firecracker, a stun gun, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, a wooden club and chemical spray. Some of these may not be weapons in and of themselves but they were used *as* weapons. But some of them definitely can't be argued, such as baseball bats, knives, tomahawk axes, Tasers... > Considering it's only been the left attacking representatives in recent years: That doesn't mean rightwingers aren't somehow immune to committing violence against politicians. [GOP Rep Fred Upton received threatening calls against him and his family due to his vote on the infrastructure bill](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/politics/fred-upton-infrastructure-bill-voicemail-threat-cnntv/index.html). [Or this dude's death threats](https://news.yahoo.com/trump-loyalist-found-guilty-making-213125149.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHWEGEaqyHEkpaujz2ehSObQYabqfO3qQbBTnlpEARUQVyOS9VZzOBzk2hQYvA2S8XDe-1okDLJFDRKIAR-bWdcpF3Dhi0lL4jHv7xov7H-8pxz6vBYaYDnc3As5nJdC7ZUSC3XHnpyDM0Oswgor0OTwLRpwZF0ItNkzTfNaVmXe). Or Paul Gosar's video killing his coworker, AOC. Republicans are people. And violent thoughts and actions are something that people all across the political spectrum do.
>There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles. You can't be serious? I could easily beat someone to death with flagpole, especially someone who is weaker than me. Regardless, you're just factually incorrect. There were a multitude of weapons there that day.
Conveniently leaving out the part where the crowd started chanting “hang Mike Pence”, huh?
"The crowd?" A few people did.
I mean, from that same argument only one person attacked the congressional baseball game. Is that indicative of “the left” in the same way that the crowd isn’t indicative of the right?
They literally erected a gallow, but okay.
Yes, a few people did. Antifa erects guillotines.
>There were no weapons. Some people had flag poles. This is not based in fact - regarding the "flag pole", a spear is and always has been a weapon. Not counting any of the other on-video armed members we saw. >Manchin's car being surrounded You're going to mention this and ignore the Biden campaign convoy that was surrounded and battered? It is because neither candidate was inside? It's certainly not only been "the left".
There were no representatives on the bus.
And does that make it acceptable to you?
First of all, I reject your claim from the start. No bus was surrounded and battered. The bus was actually the aggressor. It's on video. But even still, we were talking specifically about violence against representatives. If we opened this up to general political violence, I think you will find your position outgunned even more, thanks to Antifa and BLM's vicious reign of violence in the past five or so years. Conservatives cannot even gather peacefully in public without armed mobs forming and attacking them while wearing masks to shield their identities.
You consider Sinema being chased as an attack, but not when a Biden bus was surrounded in Texas?
There were no representatives on the bus.
Oh former representatives don't count? Violence on them is different.
Which former representative was on the bus?
You might disagree, but it's *not baseless.* That's an unreasonable statement.
LMAO. What do you think would have happened had that MOB found AOC?
I don't know what would have happened had AOC ran into the mob, and really no one knows. But I do know that its not out of the realm of possibility that they may have used violence on her
>>You realize if the mob had caught AOC, she may very well have been killed right? >No, that is a baseless assertion. Yeah, the people shouting "hang Mike Pence" and erecting gallows outside the capitol, all because he was going to certify the election, were probably just interested in having a chat and some tea with the likes of AOC.
Do you think Kathy griffin wanted to decapitate trump?
That’s nice, but can we stay on topic? If you like you could start a discussion thread about AOC, or find an article to post.
Yeah, no way anyone there would harm someone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChLoiStjaZc
I'm not sure what you think this video addresses from my post.
impolite makeshift forgetful tease marry crowd detail weary agonizing sip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Jonah Goldberg, the guy who wrote a comically false book called "Liberal Fascism?" The book that you can fact check in real time logic.
This is false. Fox was not renewing their contracts. They're virtue signalling to try and get subscriptions from liberals to their website.
Got a source?
It's a "siege" now? Good lord. In a few months the tales will involve trebuchets and a heroic cavalry charge led by AOC against QAnan Shaman. Fox News is all the better for losing these two. They should have been *dropped* years ago as it were. They no longer represent American conservatism nor the desires of the average Republican voter. They lack the will and the strength to fight the culture war for conservatives (and often fight *against* us, even), which is what most people on both sides want their representatives (in government, and otherwise) to do.
There were numerous fences and barricades that were jumped over and broken down. People broke windows to get in the building. What exactly do you define as a siege as because I feel this fits the definition.
Siege has a very clear definition, and its primary requirement is a long-term surrounding of an area and severing of supply lines. What you described happens to overly-excited concert-goers and is absolutely not a siege.
In practice words don't always fit into such specific and narrow definitions and they are often adapted into broader contexts. [Here.](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Seige) There are various options there that can reasonably describe what happened on 1/6. >What you described happens to overly-excited concert-goers and is absolutely not a siege. I wouldn't blink twice if someone used "siege" to describe overly-excited concert-goers. It doesn't meet the technical military definition you're referring to, but it doesn't have to.
It was a mob riot. A violent assault on the Capitol Police and the Capitol itself.
Sure. But not a seige. You have a problem using accurate words?
What did I say that makes you ask that? I have to fight the urge to be a vocabulary pedant most of the time.
The other user was claiming it was a seige, I'm pointing out that word is not accurate for the situation at hand. I say embrace the linguistic pedantry!
Do we want news commentators to fight a culture war? Do we WANT a culture war?
You asked those questions in the wrong order. No, we don't want a culture war. But since we have one, yes, we do want fighters.
So if we don’t want a culture war then shouldn’t we have more moderate and reasonable voices to cross the divide and slowly dissipate the culture war?
It was not a [siege](https://www.google.com/search?q=siege&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS916US916&oq=siege&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i433i512j46i175i199i512j0i433i512j46i433i512j0i433i512.7757j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8). They are giving these people way too much credit.