๐ณ๐ฑ
Funny, Trump pushed for a stimulus of 2K, Bidens only 1.4K for the people. which also happens to be the exact same amount for what actually got approved for Trumps first stimulus check, or if we count total then 2K approved from Trump. But no matter how you count it Trump pushed for a higher dollar value to the people for stimulus consistently than Biden did.
likewise Trumps total amount on the stimilus (including money for companies) was 2.2 trillion, bidens is 1.9 trillion.
That tells us a few things:
1) Trump gave more money to individuals than biden in by more than 30%
2) A larger percentage of Trumps stimulus budget was for the people rather than for corporations.
3) the overall amount of Trump's stimulus was larger.
Never ceases top amaze me the length people will bend over backwards to try to sell the bias of Trump bad, Biden good. You literally made up a random fact which is clearly not true (and easily seen from the numbers). You pretty much just assumed it to be the case and jumped in and sold the narrative and even just a few seconds of addition/subtraction would have shown trump gave a significantly higher portion of the stimulus to the general population than Biden did.
@freemo Trump provided a 1st check of $600. Biden will provide $1400, plus 100% health coverage for people with no jobs, plus expanded ObamaCare, plus 100 billions for policies related to pandemic (that will go to the people too) and other provisions.
It is not only the money. It is health and others previsions.
It is true that Trump gave a fatter check.
Trump was evil. No because I say so. Or democrats say so. Because he is. All the planet say so.
And the people believing he was great attacked the capitol, or believe the attack is justified, and believe the election was rigged, even when the votes were counting twice and in some states as Georgia they were counted 3 times.
Evil. Because they twisted the true. And Trump and his followers were ready (and they still are) to discard votes just because they do not like them.
So yeah. Trump check was bigger. This 2nd stimulus focus more on people. And Trump is evil.
@freemo And Trump was evil too because he divided the country between his followers, that he called Patriots and the democrats. In his opinion, Democrats are not Americans. In fact they are hardly humans. So there is not conflict on getting Pelosi and hanging her as they tried. Or Pence.
I am not sure what if there is something more evil.
Oh! Yes. A trumpist is ready to believe something said by Putin before believing something said by a democrat. I saw it. Several times.
Last time, said but someone on the National Guard of New Mexico, near Mesilla.
That is why Trump is evil. It will take time to end this division.
> And Trump was evil too because he divided the country between his followers, that he called Patriots and the democrats.
No the democrats mostly did that. Since day one of Trumps election there was violence. The democrats commited so much violence I spent weeks watching my city literally burn and the skys filled with black smoke... Trump was an idiot and said a lot of stupid things, and yes people used that and exagerated it and the democrats took it and used it to divide. Trump holds the blame for being an idiot and saying things that could be used against him. But the democrats are the ones who spent 4 years being violent and lying and exagerating about everystupid thing he said just because it is easy to take stupid shit that isnt said in a tactful way out of context and making it sound worse.. and trump doesnt get any points for being an idiot.
But no, the democrats have divided. As a person who used to be a democrat and who voted for OBama never have I been more ashamed and wanted to distance myself more than after seeing how they behaved the last 4 years, they were sickening.
@freemo I wish those were exaggerations 
He was racist. He disrespected women. And he treated anyone that was not his follower as basically an enemy.
He said that if he would be elected, we would return to "the good all times" (aka the times before MLK).
If someone said something stupid, that person will answer for those words. I mean... let's imagine an employee of some company says the same as Trump. He or she will be fired on spot!
We will see with Biden. I am not a fan. I am not against him either. The same story happened in 2015. I was in "wait and see mode".
Trump clearly could not be in the office... I mean... when Puerto Rico collapsed he said: โCan we outsource the electricity? Can we sell the island? You know, or divest of that asset?โ
And he even gave his followers a trick when he stripped Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in most of the U.S... so trumpist could go hunting!
He was OK with an entire species going extinct so he could win an election! Come on! That is devil-ish! :D
Still, I do not agree with democrats being divisive. Yes. If a group misses "the good old times" then it is possible some part of the population gets pissed. The division started with "the good old times" part. It did not start with the reaction to a miserable phrase.
He was racist. He disrespected women. And he treated anyone that was not his follower as basically an enemy.
I mean thats not wrong, he was racist, and he was pretty shitty about what he said about women.
Then again Biden literally started his entire career to champion the cause of promoting segregation and doing everything in his power to block desegregation efforts. It was such an important issue for him it literally was the reason he became a senator and fought for it for years…. so while trump certainly had some racist tendencies I wont condone he didnt really hold a candle to Biden’s racism.
He said that if he would be elected, we would return to “the good all times” (aka the times before MLK).
More of that good old exaggeration and lying the dems are so great at… Yes MAGA was his motto, he never once likened it to “the days before MLK”, thats your own fabrication. At worst the guy (like almost every old dude in history, regardless of their disposition towards other races) saw the past as a better time. While you are right to say he is wrong about that it looks quite ridiculous when you start implying he intended that to mean anything racial or that he meant by that that racial equality needs to be abolished…
The reason all this makes your arguments look so weak is because its such obvious and extreme exaggerations of what was actually said it makes it look like you have no argument at all unless you lie and exaggerate.. Thing is, if you didn’t lie and exaggerate and called him out for what he actually explicitly said I’d probably agree with you, but instead because you take the dishonest route and go out of your way to manipulate what was said into something worse than what was said it makes me, a former-democrat, want to have nothing to do with democrats and dont want o be associated with people who lie all the time to get their way even if i do hate the GOP almost as much.
And he even gave his followers a trick when he stripped Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in most of the U.S… so trumpist could go hunting!
He was OK with an entire species going extinct so he could win an election! Come on! That is devil-ish! :D
No doubt this was the wrong move by him and I certainly dont support his choice, but again your interpretation of his motives aren’t accurate. He is a conspiracy theorist and an idiot. When he does things like that it isnt because he doesnt care if the species dies, its that he thinks nature (through the will of god or whatever other way he explains it to himself) is more resilient than people think, scientists are idiots, and that the wolfs would be just fine without explicit protection. Obviously he is wrong, but this isnt out of malice its stupidity and there is no need to frame it as something it isnt.
To be clear his choices and policy in terms of the environment overall is horrific, I am not arguing he is a good president, only that being an idiot is not the same as being evil and you cant twist everytime he is an idiot into it being evil no matter how much you want to… he is evil too, but in far less damning ways than this and in no worse ways than biden.
Still, I do not agree with democrats being divisive.
Of course you don’t, you are literally acting like one of them and are literally doing it right now in this thread… I would not expect you to admit you, and the democrats are divisive. In fact taking no blame for yourself and blaming everything on the other side is virtually the defining quality of being divisive. So you are following the formula to a tee. In fact if you had admitted that democrats held some blame for the divisiveness only then would you have provided some evidence that I was wrong by example, ironically enough,.
Well. Biden was a son of his time. Same Trump.
I gave both the benefit of the doubt. Because I believe people could repent and change. I was not blind to Trump! But who knows? Perhaps he understood his new position. Clearly, he did not.
Trump quickly showed his current self. Biden? We do not know yet. At least I do not know. I feel he is not patient (like an old person, he has no time to lose so it is expected). However, it seems to me that the Biden of the 60s or 70s is not the same Biden as this one.
We will see.
One definition of evil is being the superhero of your own story. So yeah. We could explain why Trump did what he did.
The effects of the decisions matter. He was not only the president of his followers. He was The President of the US. The leader of the free world and the head of the government more powerful on the Earth. He was all that. He cannot pick without breaking things...
Clearly, the effects of his presidency were not positive. US international position suffered. Our allies were humiliated (or plainly killed). Debt increased. Division increased. The global warming fight was delayed for 4 years. Those are the consequences. They are not good.
"The good old days" phrase has a political meaning. It points to the time before MLK. No doubt they were good days for some part of the population.
Another phrase of Trump: "With me, law and order". That phrase came straight from Nixon and it refers to massive incarceration policies.
Is Trump an idiot? Perhaps. I do not believe so. Because an idiot would make mistakes statistically dispersed. His "mistakes" were all the time in the same direction. I am suspicious...
I still do not think Democrats are divisive. Strongly opposing to storming the capitol is not a sign of being rigid or divisive. More like a sign of decency...
If you werent selling the obviously lies biden and democrats sold for 4 years I might agree with your impartiality.. I know you think it of yourself.. but its clear from your pattern and statements it is far from the truth.
In many ways your a lot like trump... repeating conspiracy theories, lying and believing your own lies to sell a extremist ideology where one side is infallible and the other does all the wrong. You like msot democrats are perfect mirror images of Trump, sadly.
@freemo I did not say that. I did not say Democrats are infallible. I actively said 2 or 3 times that I am in a "wait and see" attitude with Biden.
He already did stuff that I believe is wrong. But he is not actively dividing the country.
They are things I could like or not. Tweeting "democrats enemy of the state" is IMHO a no no no (same if republicans were the target).
Examples calling democrats: un-americans, treasonous, enemy of the state, radical left, vicious, steal the election,
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42954829
I never said you **said** they are infallable.. I said you have **demonstrated** that you treat them as infallable... Saying you are a wait and see guy is all well and good, most people see themselves very differently than they actually are.
I like you because your respectful, and that hasnt change, as long as your respectful ill treat you as such and wont have anything personal against you.. but it is very very clear from your behavior and responses over the course of many months of knowing you that you are far.. **far** from impartial.
@freemo I am not impartial. When someone try to crush an election by stopping the certification... yes. I am not impartial at all.
They are a lot of fear between republicans. Why? When I was in Idaho, a radio show (very conservative) was trying to convince that Biden will not take the savings from the bank, and Democrats will not install the communism, and things like that.
It was a political show in a religious conservative radio. And they were receiving calls from a terrified audience.
Who did introduce those crazy ideas in that people? Terrified of democrats! Like if they would come from North Korea!
No. I am not impartial.
You dont seem to understand what impartial means.. not being impartial means I do not think you are capable of accurately describing reality, not that you are against acts which you deem to be immoral.
There are plenty things I hate about Trump, he is horrible. But I am capable of seeing the reality of the situation and not need to take someone who is horrible and exagerate it into something it is not simply because im unable to give fair credit to someone who horrible.
@freemo Well. Your background is probably a technical one. So you believe someone can have a straight reading of the real world.
That is impossible.
We observe the world using glasses. We could measure some parameters (a lot of them actually) accurately. Still. Making sense of them is difficult. And that is with object/observer relations.
Politics, and everything involving people cannot be observed as physics do. Because there is not such relation. The observer and the object being observed is the same. And all kind of feedback loops "contaminate" the scenario. We are not gas molecules.
If a person could, then he or she will be rich, because he or she could predict every transaction on the market, every stock going up and down. And he or she would be powerful, because he or she could predict every action of every goverment with years in advance... He or she would understand all the people. He or she would be famous.
In the end, trying to be "impartial" is having a bias to the conservative side of the story. It is unavoidable because we have data from the past, so the bias to tradition and similar issues leaks all around.
You are literally replying to an OP that is showing a liberal leaning newspaper obviously and in black and white causing division.. taking the same event and clearly actively tryign to shit talk one president and kiss the ass of the other.. undeniable act of division from a news agency, which if it had journalistic integrity is not suppose to do that..
Yet you still have the gall to try to make it sound like Trump is the one doing the dividing. Trump was just an idiot, a pathetic very stupid, conspiracy theory beleiving idiot. The democrats, they dont have that excuse. They methodically and intentionally lied cheated and divided every chance they could get. Not because they were stupid, but because it manipulated people to make them look good, at the expense of the people..
You just bought it, hook line and sinker.
@freemo
Well. I disagree.
Of course you do, your one of the group, or at least a supporter of the group.. meaning you yourself contribute to that divisiveness and to be divisive pretty much means one of your defining qualities has to be blaming everything on the other guy and accepting absolutely no responsibility.
Hopefully the next guy actually is what dems said Trump was.
@pthenq1 @biomedmax > Trump provided a 1st check of $600
Incorrect, trump’s first check that was passed by senate and actually paid out was 1,400$ same as bidens, second check Trump insisted on 2K but Trump, as with everything, was just trashed talked and no one listened to him so a 600$ check was pushed against his wishes.
Biden never ones asked for or pushed for a 2K check or any higher amount.
We are talking about what each president pushed for, not what the senate did despite the presidents stance, that isnt on the president.
So by that logic Trump supported, in total, 3,400$ but only managed to actually get passed 2,600$ in total.
Biden at no point pushed for a higher amount, he requested only 1,400$ in total, and got what he requested..
Therefore Trump pushed for and passed significantly higher stimulus than Biden no matter how you dice it.
Trump was evil. No because I say so. Or democrats say so. Because he is. All the planet say so.
The whole planet also dealt in slavery for most of our existence and thought it was perfectly ok too. Sorry but what the whole planet things in terms of ethics and morals means jack shit to me considering the planets horrific reputation when it comes to morality.
That said I wouldnt disagree per se that Trump is evil.. just marginally less so than Biden.
Evil. Because they twisted the true.
Yes that is why I would say they are both evil, both have a reputation of horrific lies and ethics.
And Trump and his followers were ready (and they still are) to discard votes just because they do not like them.
No that isnt why, they whole heartidly beleive that the votes were rigged, none of them want to throw out votes because “they do not like them” and it is a fiction to attach that motive to it. They legitimately beleive votes were not counted and want those votes counted. Remember, their demands were a recount, not to have Biden blocked, or Trump installed, a recount.
That said, they are idiots for thinking the votes were rigged and they were wrong. But that makes them stupid conspiracy theorists.
So yeah. Trump check was bigger. This 2nd stimulus focus more on people. And Trump is evil.
Trump literally pushed for 30% more money for the people, but somehow Biden’s check is more for the people… umm.. ok
As for the health part, Trumps stimulus also included a ton of free money invested in creating the vaccines, which we are now administering in record numbers.. a huge portion of his check was focused on health, so yet another fiction in the narrative you seem to be selling.
@freemo
Well. Biden started with $2000 and then he went down to $1400. Still, Trump gave more money indeed. It is what I said.
No. The whole planet did not deal with slavery. Let's not twist reality to justify Trump.
To name just a few: The Spanish Empire abolished slavery in 1542. Just to name one of the actors...
In the civilized north, the Afro-Americans were free in 1833 and even before.
In the past, slavery was not even comparable with Confederation Slavery. Roman slaves could buy their freedom for example. In other cultures, citizens became slaves to pay debts. After the debt was paid off they were free.
If we go too far in the past we face technological issues. Manpower was required because of no engines.
Evil is to have slaves when they are not required. For example. Mississippi ended slavery in 2013. What about that?
So no. No all the world was the same as the south. Just the south.
It is pretty much whataboutism to declare all the evilness of the world the same. It was not. It is impossible since the world is a big place.
And comparing the evilness of Trump vs Biden... more whataboutism.
I mean... Trump harangued his followers to attack the Capitol. I am sure no president did something like that before...
> Well. Biden started with $2000 and then he went down to $1400. Still, Trump gave more money indeed. It is what I said.
Incorrect, he pushed for 1400 from the start. News agencies reported this (incorrectly) as 2000$ in some cases by adding it to the existing 600$ stimulus that is already in the process of being distributed. At no point did biden propose 2K
See the following for an example of this where they refer to it as 2K but actually are honest enough to point out int he article they are just adding Bidens 1.4K to the already in play 0.6K:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics/stimulus-payments-2000-dollars-biden/index.html
> No. The whole planet did not deal with slavery. Let's not twist reality to justify Trump.
>
> To name just a few: The Spanish Empire abolished slavery in 1542. Just to name one of the actors...
>
> In the civilized north, the Afro-Americans were free in 1833 and even before.
You literally just contradicted yourself and proved me right "no the whole world wasnt involved in slavery, here are two countries to prove that, both of which were involved in slavery, proving they werent involved in slavery"...
> In the past, slavery was not even comparable with Confederation Slavery. Roman slaves could buy their freedom for example. In other cultures, citizens became slaves to pay debts. After the debt was paid off they were free.
sorry you dont get to use the whole "american slavery is the only slavery that counts as 'real' slavery... dude the mental gymnastics is overwhelming your doing right now.
For starters, no roman slaves could not simply buy their freedom, not exactly. They could if and **only if** the master gave them the option. By law anything a slave owned their master owned, and if a slave was allowed to keep money at all it was at the discretion of their master and it took the form of "tips" more than a pay.
All of this is explained clearly on wikipedia or any other source, for example some quotes from wikipedia on the roman practice:
"Manumission, or enfranchisement, is the act of freeing slaves **by their owner**."
"The motivations for manumission were complex and varied. Firstly, it may present itself as a sentimental and benevolent gesture. One typical scenario was the freeing in the master's will of a devoted servant after long years of service. A trusted bailiff might be manumitted as a gesture of gratitude. For those working as agricultural laborers or in workshops, there was little likelihood of being so noticed."
"Under Roman law, a slave had no personhood and was protected under law mainly as his or her master's property."
As wikipedia goes on to point out this is in fact no different than american slaves whereby an american slave owner had the option of freeing their own slaves if they wished. A quote from wikipedia on the same topic/page regarding american slaves:
"Slaves could sometimes arrange manumission by agreeing to "purchase themselves" by paying the master an agreed amount. Some masters demanded market rates; others set a lower amount in consideration of service."
> If we go too far in the past we face technological issues. Manpower was required because of no engines.
Ahh the good old excuse slavery was ok because we needed slaves to work the fields. Sorry that doesn't cut it, slavery int he USA was before even electricity was common place or gas powered vehicles. Technology was not particularly advanced at the time slavery was in use in the USA anymore than the previous few hundred years, and its a poor excuse either way.
> For example. Mississippi ended slavery in 2013. What about that?
Effectively a lie. in 1863 slavery was made illegal in **all** states without a single exception as a matter of law. Even if a state wanted to make slavery legal and passed a law to make it legal the law itself would not actually be a law as it would automatically be unenforcable as higher law existed that overrode it.
Moreover the last time any human being was treated as a slave in the USA, regardless of law was on December 18, 1865, after that date there wasnt a single slave every again anywhere in the USA.
Please stop pulling dates out of your ass, it completely discredits any argument you wish to make.
What you are referring to is something entierly different, in 1995 Mississippi official decided to include themselves in the states that *ratified** the 13th amendment, which was already active in mississippi for over 100 years at that point and there was never any need or pressure for them to ratify it and in no way effected any actual laws. It was a purely symbolic gesture and nothing else, and highly unusual, as there is no need for all states to ratify amendments for them to go into force. Not ratifying an amendment is not an indication that the state refuses to recognize the law either, thats not how it works.
The date 2013 comes from the fact that the U.S.Archivist was unaware of and not notified of the symbolic ratification that took place in 1995 until 2013 at which point it was added to official record.
Again please stop making stuff up for dramatic effect or to win an argument, it just discredits your whole argument.
> It is pretty much whataboutism to declare all the evilness of the world the same. It was not. It is impossible since the world is a big place.
Never once claimed all the evilness of the world was the same. I pointed out that slavery was a problem in virtually every part of the world, and it was, denying that is disrespectful and a disgrace to the histories of marginalized people who were the victims of that slave trade.
> I mean... Trump harangued his followers to attack the Capitol. I am sure no president did something like that before...
He didnt, another fantasy.. what he did was beleive in a rediculous conspiracy theory where he thought the vote wasnt counted fairly, and so did his followers.. what he did was, just like Kamala has done, just like Biden has done and just like countless other politicians have done, was to say things like "we need to fight for justice" ... or to encourage a march on the capital (something that is so common it is almost a tradition when it comes to political causes)... so yes, his actions were no different than countless politicians before him.
Where things got different is that his followers were pulled fromt he crowd by police, and beaten (caught on camera) while his followers were still contained behind barricades.. you can hear the crowd screaming in anger on the videos of the event as the cop beats a trump supporter who is already subdued and on the ground, even calling over another police officers to join in on the beating. The crowd screams back "we should beat you!" and other things as they become enraged. All this was just a few minutes before the crowd finally became riotous and broke through the barricades and actually began their riot on the capitol... but of course all the democrats love to leave that little detail out even though it has been showed on video and is quite clear... why? Because its exactly the shit that caused their own people to riot for 4 years straight, if they pointed that out it would look too damn hypocritical and destroy their whole narrative.
But hey, lets just keep making up whatever fake reality we want, im sure thats a way better way not to "divide" the nation... Right now we could all be rallying together against police brutality, which is really what happened that day on capitol hill, and something the democrats pretended to care about.. but no, they would rather divide than unite against evil... and you call the trumpeters the ones doing the dividing... yea ok...
@freemo yep! you are right regarding the $2000 pay. He said "$2000 total", and what he meant was to add $1400 to the $600 last check.
I did not contradict myself with slavery. It is not fair judging a time with the morals of other times.
Saying "oh! Greeks were evils because they had slaves" is not fair. They did not have a choice because of the technological gap between our time and their time.
I said it: They did not have engines. Or capitalism. etc.
But the south had both. :-)
They could Pay... yes! They would not be rich. But they decided to have slaves and be rich...
And no. Slavery and greeks are not a fair comparison to slavery and confederates. Greeks had no alternatives.
Same us and our chemical cars. In 600 years someone could say "Oh! They were evil because they were using combustion cars and not antimatter cars! Evil!!"... It will not be fair :-)
Slavery was bad after the industrial revolution happened. Because there was a choice.
Roman had no choice. Same greeks. Starting 1700s and especially the 1800s there were alternatives (no only machines, but institutions: corporations, employees. etc).
Trump clearly incited his base at the rally stage on Jan 6. I listened to his talk several times. It is a fact that he triggered the insurrection. And here is the data:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/opinion/capitol-attack-cellphone-data.html
Check the green dots. ๐ they have the of a true fact. There is no argument regarding the people on the rally stage were the same people of the Capitol insurrection.
his actions were different from all the other presidents because Congress was never stormed before after a president's words!
There are not tracking of riots created by any politician at least in the last 50 years. If you have a record of something like that, please share the link.
> yep! you are right regarding the $2000 pay. He said "$2000 total", and what he meant was to add $1400 to the $600 last check.
Funny huh, Trump demands 2000$, gets rejected and they give 600$ then biden adds the 600$ passed under Trump to his own 2000$ figure to make it sound like biden gave out the the 2K.... but yea no one is bias against trump, no way.
> I did not contradict myself with slavery. It is not fair judging a time with the morals of other times.
Fine, well no one has been alive when slavery was on going in the USA either. Slavery has been illegal in the USA for three to four generations now. In fact the last time anyone was alive who had even been a slave is getting close to 100 years now, and they were 84 years old when they died.
But of course your going to use some obscure logic where slavery that happened over 150 years ago is somehow valid but slavery from 200 years ago somehow isnt... we call that cherry picking and its absolutely absurd in the extreme.
> Saying "oh! Greeks were evils because they had slaves" is not fair. They did not have a choice because of the technological gap between our time and their time.
Prime example of manipulative language and exageration right here... Why are you brining up the oldest form of slavery as if it is valid to the conversation, from a government and civilization that has fallen and doesnt exist?
Why dont we look at some dates huh and put it relative to the USA and youll see just how silly your argument sounds.
So as we covered 1863 the was the last time slavery was legal in the USA and 1865 the last time anyone acted as a slave. So how many countries around the world officially made slavery legal **AFTER** the use... the answer is, a hell of a lot, 100s.. In fact USA abolished slavery **sooner** than most countries.
* Brazil didnt abolish it till 1888
* Italy abolished it in 1981
* Germany we know had it well into the 1920's throughout world war 2
* Russia 1861 (about the same time as USA)
* Poland 1864 (same as USA)
* Netherlands 1863 (same as USA)
Seeing a pattern here? Most countries in europe and even around the world, save a few, abolished slavery at the same time or later than the USA.. hell even Africa had slaves longer than the USA.
> Same us and our chemical cars. In 600 years someone could say "Oh! They were evil because they were using combustion cars and not antimatter cars! Evil!!"... It will not be fair :-)
You sound so ridiculous... not only was america not particularly exceptional in when it abolished slavery (and abolished it earlier than many countries, later than some others).. but you are talking about a time when there was no engine, no electricity, the technology in 1863 was virtually non existent. Farming a plantation was virtually the same process in early 1800's as it was in the hundred years priors.
Your grasping for straws and its obvious.
> Roman had no choice. Same greeks. Starting 1700s and especially the 1800s there were alternatives (no only machines, but institutions: corporations, employees. etc).
Be specific, what did people have in 1800 that gave them an alternative to slavery, name the specific technology, that people in greece didnt have. What is this magical technology that suddenly made slaves obsolete. Not that it matters considering that, again, the USA abolished slavery around the same time as most countries, in fact, earlier than most, but whatever apparently we have to compare it to anctient greece for some reason that makes no sense (oh yea because its the most absurd example!)
> Trump clearly incited his base at the rally stage on Jan 6. I listened to his talk several times. It is a fact that he triggered the insurrection. And here is the data:
I've seen the speech and I saw the interview with the people there.. but again the actual facts caught on tape disprove you (Which your just ignoring and talking like it didnt happen)... If it was trumps speech then why is it when they first arrived at the capitol they obeyed the rules and stayed behind the barricades for some time? Why was it only after an more than an hour, and only once cops started pulling people out of a crowd and started beating them that the crowd sur4ged past the barricades. They were just lightweight metal barricades, if the crowd was truely enraged from a speech 2 hours earlier they would have marched right through the barricades once they arrived.
Your fabricating the reality you want to beleive because its what your told and completely ignoring obvious facts that prove you wrong.
Also lets not forget the moment violence did begin trump was on TV within minutes calling for them to not be violent, so he was rather explicit.
> Check the green dots. ๐ they have the of a true fact. There is no argument regarding the people on the rally stage were the same people of the Capitol insurrection.
You realize posting a liberal leaning discredit news organization is a very weak argument when **there is literal video of what incited the incident and can see, caught on tape, the crowd responding to the police beatings, not trump**... Why would I need to listen to nytimes spin on a story when I can literally see it happen on video and see what happened the moments before the barricades are breached?
> his actions were different from all the other presidents because Congress was never stormed before after a president's words!
>
> There are not tracking of riots created by any politician at least in the last 50 years. If you have a record of something like that, please share the link.
How are **his** actions different because of what **other people** people did.. **he** did not storm the capital so saying **his** actions are different because some group of people became riotous is absolute nonsense.. What you mean to say is that his followers acted differently to trump saying the same things hundreds of politicians and activists (including MLK) had said before him... and that would be true... so? that doesnt mean trump did something different, it means his followers did.
The earliest slavery regime was abolished on 1542. 300 years before America.
There were several technologies the world had compared with the greeks and roman times.
The metal plow, invented by a guy called John Deere in 1837 (or Andrus).
The farm: a small patch of land that could be worked by families and perhaps employees.
There was not need of slavery at 1865.
I am not sure why we are talking about slavery. I think you introduced the subject. No sure why.
The green dots are very clear: the people on the stage were the people assaulting the capitol. Check the URL I sent. You can see their cellphones. They are clearly the same people.
His actions were different because there is a cause/effect relation clearly displayed on the movements of all those cellphones. It is pointless to dispute reality. Things happened as they happened:
- Trump talked very aggressively in a stage. He told them to go the Capitol. We all could listen him.
- The same people there were the same people in the capitol. We have videos and the testimony of their devices. It is pointless to ignore them.
It never happened before something like that (that = a President inviting to enter to the Capitol to show and explain to the indecisive who won).
The evil is the hero of his own story.
And. MLK (and others) never ever invited to riot the Capitol.
Why in the world are you referencing the small number of exceptional cases that abolished slavery early and ignoring the magnitude of hundreds of countries that abolished slavery after the USA?
Your doing what I keep giving you a hard time about, you are trying to sell a narrative that is contrary to the clear evidence because you cant let go of your narrative and look at the history objectively.
> The metal plow, invented by a guy called John Deere in 1837 (or Andrus).
Perfect example right here of you trying to manipulate the narrative. lets put this in perspective as you are using this technology as an example why american slavery is different..
1) incorrect, the first metal plough was invented in anctient egypt thousands of years ago.. you really think it was 1800s when someone first thought of putting metal on the tip of a plough. Its only that in most soil metal ploughs served no advantage, it is only needed in very rocky soil.
https://www.ploughmen.co.uk/about-us/history-of-the-plough
2) john deer meerly popularized the "self-polishing steel plough", the idea of metal ploughs is thousands of years old
3) But lets pretend for a second this is a new invention (which it was not, so what i say here is more of a 'lets pretent' thing).... your talking about an invention that was only created 26 years before the last slave existed in the USA.. keep in mind the date it was invented is not the date it went in wide use. It took several more years for it to be adopted.. so it existed for 20 years right at the end of slavery... ok hows that an argument, we literally abolished slavery shortly after it got invented, if anything proving the opposite of your point, that once the technology advanced and slaves werent needed we abolished it.
> I am not sure why we are talking about slavery. I think you introduced the subject. No sure why.
I brought up slavery as a counterpoint to your argument where you said "No because I say so. Or democrats say so. Because he is. All the planet say so." You argued that apparently if the whole planet things something is ok, or evil then it must be true.. I used slavery as a counterpoint to show that is hardly the case.
At that point you spent several messages trying to argue how somehow the whole worlds slavery is perfectly justifiable and only the USA is guilty or something.. you'd be much better served to have just admited slavery was wrong and that the world all agreeing doesnt mean squat when it comes to morality, however that would have to mean you'd concede you were wrong about something, but your confirmation biases would never allow that.
@freemo Well, the Spanish Empire was not part of the "small number of exceptional cases that abolished slavery early".
It was called "The empire on which the sun never sets" and it was the fist one to be like that. It covered great part of the world. So when slavery was abolished it was a Big Deal.
The slaves came from Portuguese empire.
I understand John Deere plow was iron based. Steel ones came later.
Still I do not know why we are talking about slavery.
@biomedmax
The difference is in the reporting. You're going to have to research if you don't want to keep being led down the primrose path.
@biomedmax The difference is that this 1.9 trillions will rain on people. The others were raining on companies. There is a difference. ๐