🇳🇱
Serious question. Did they find any evidence yet in all the trials and stuff going on that clearly shows #Trump intentionally want the capitol riot?
When it happened I saw little clear evidence it was intentional but at the same time based on his behavior and personality I totally would expect it was intentional and somewhere at some point there might have been a record of him saying he wanted it.... If there is any actual evidence I'd love to see it if anyone has any as I havent been following as closely as I should.
@Alphakilopapa Considering I intentionally avoid "the media" and have little to no exposure it says a lot less than you think it says.
@freemo If they had found something you wouldnt be able to avoid it.
Dont assume what I cant avoid, that was my ex's mistake!
@freemo Why ask? He's a stochastic terrorist using mob boss techniques. Former associates are telling us exactly that. He never orders. He bellows threats & intimidates people. Why would Mussolini order if he can feign innocence by just threatening, then painting the executor as crazy? He is who he is. It's up to the courts to decide if a mob boss is above the law or not. Thus far, apparently so.
> Why ask?
Why would someone ask for facts... why are they important... really? Because the truth matters.
> He's a stochastic terrorist using mob boss techniques.
Yea I generally agree with that, he uses intimidation tactics and I am more than happy to see him get in trouble for that pattern.
> Former associates are telling us exactly that.
Sure, that isnt what I asked about, but sure, there is little doubt that he is a bully.
> He bellows threats & intimidates people.
He sure does... not what I asked about, but yea he does.
> Why would Mussolini order if he can feign innocence by just threatening, , then painting the executor as crazy?
1) because he isnt very smart and 2) I care about his **actual** innocence, not what he feigns or other accuse him of, but the truth, and thus why I ask.
> It's up to the courts to decide if a mob boss is above the law or not. Thus far, apparently so.
Wait.. thats a contradiction... your saying the courts decided he is above the law because you decided he is guilty and they have not, but then int he same sentence say "its up to the courts" in an attempt to deny me any right to make my own determination? That seems strange.
@freemo Do you argue for a living or as a hobby?
I don't care. I want the son of a bitch behind bars. I don't care if he's arrested for swiping a candy bar.
"Wait.. that's a contradiction."
Have a nice evening by fucking off.
> Do you argue for a living or as a hobby?
As a research scientist one could say I do it for a living.
> don't care. I want the son of a bitch behind bars. I don't care if he's arrested for swiping a candy bar.
Me too I'd love to see him behind bars... again not asking about if he "deserves to be behind bars". I am asking specifically about the jan 6 riots so I can determine if **that** is the reason he sould be behind bars or one of the other reasons.
> Have a nice evening by fucking off.
I suppose thats one way to say you dont care about facts without saying it... gladly, bye.
@freemo the thing is, we live in a time where two people can see the exact same thing, read the exact same words, and come away with exactly opposite ideas about what they just saw or read.
So in that sort of environment... the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
It's just the state of society, that we can look at the same weather report and disagree about whether it's raining or not.
@volkris Very true of course... but i care less about if there was evidence you may disagree with or find less damning and more about hearing about what evidence, questionable or otherwise, that may have came up that is less speculative.
@freemo Yeah, asking people to put their evidence on their table sounds like a pretty good idea.
But it does get frustrating when you ask if there has been evidence, and people were reply that there absolutely has, and what they present isn't evidence at all, and you point that out, and they say it is, and at that point there's nowhere else to go with it.
It's raining outside!
What's your evidence?
Well here's a bucket full of water from the rain!
...That bucket is empty.
No it's full of rain! Look at all this water in it!
Siiiigh
I refer to it as the book club theory. We all showed up to the book club, and we all read books with the same title, but the plot lines were different in different people's copies, so it's pretty darn hard to discuss the book.
this is where getting people who disagree etc to sit together and discuss things for a long time, perhaps repeatedly, would really help. maybe they truly see things differently, or maybe they are lying. the rest of us listening can best determine that, if these kinds of conversations would happen. but we don't expect/demand that. we could. we now have the perfect technology to handle this, but there's less of it. weird.
He summoned a mob, some of whom were armed, in the weeks before J6, telling them the election was stolen. He was inviting them to something called the 'stop the steal' rally. People attending knew beforehand the plan was to march on the Capitol, and this just happened to be on the day Congress was certifying the election results. In the midst of breaking into the Capitol, he tweeted that he loved them. Now it's time for your block.
https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-committee-final-report-trump-bcfea6162fe9cfa0d120e86d069af0e4
Thanks, that was all information I knew. I was asking if there was anything that came up that is a more direct connection of him explicitly stating it.
Nice to know you block people who both hate trump, but actually want to know what the facts are... takes a pretty epic level of being a piece of shit to get there, congrats.
@freemo I've been wondering this also – he said things like "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." in the speech right before. To people who think everything Trump does is axiomatically evil, this is an obvious smoking gun. But, of course, that is embarrassingly absurd: lots of politicians regularly use metaphors like that in their rhetoric.
From what I've heard, it's pretty clear he didn't want any violence or do anything to try to make that happen. He just wanted a protest outside the Capitol building: "we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give... them (republican senators) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." and "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I don't think you're going to get anyone to point to anything better than that.
If he was trying some kind of violent takeover on 1/6, there would have been someone there with something a bit more potent than zip ties.
> I've been wondering this also – he said things like "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." in the speech right before. To people who think everything Trump does is axiomatically evil, this is an obvious smoking gun. But, of course, that is embarrassingly absurd: lots of politicians regularly use metaphors like that in their rhetoric.
Thats my thinking. On the surface it is no unusual than any other politicians language at rallies. That said I wouldnt be surprised if Trump intended a riot secretly, it would be like him, but thats not proof and I care more about what is objectively true than what I think about him... So I am very curious if there is any solid evidence or if its just "come on man, you know the dude is evil", even if he is.
> From what I've heard, it's pretty clear he didn't want any violence or do anything to try to make that happen. He just wanted a protest outside the Capitol building: "we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give... them (republican senators) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." and "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
On the surface I agree, there is an argument to be made that publicly he made choices that show he was not inciting violence... Though again i am mostly curious about what may have came out in court regarding his intent that was not public. It would not surprise me if people have testified or recordings uncovered where he did intend a riot. If that exists I'd like to know, if not I may not like it but I'd have to admit that a court shouldnt have cause, no matter how much I dislike him or suspect his motives. Evidence is all that matters.
@freemo I don't always agree with you, but sometimes you say it perfectly. 😂
I feel like the fraud trial has more of a leg to stand on. We'll see, I guess.
@ech hahah I have brief moments of clarity from time to time, best we dont squander them :)
And from what little I know I'd agree there.
if you want something 100%, not that I know of. but many people like Bannon refused to testify.
@wjmaggos when you're uncertain about one claim that doesn't mean the opposite claim is definitely true, and this is a really important concept.
Right now we have broad swaths of the public marching forward with an assumption of guilt that is far from proven, and it's pretty important that we recognize that because otherwise we end up with the same old situation where two different people can't communicate because they can't agree on what is and isn't basic truth.
If there isn't evidence showing that Trump is guilty, as @freemo requested, that doesn't mean he or OJ are definitely innocent.
However, it does mean that the assumptions about guilt are really overblown and hysterical.
This is pretty important right now as serious legal matters are weighing heavily on the public.
figuring out how to think about what's true is harder than it's ever been thanks to the internet and social media, but we're still better off. we just have to up our game. as individuals and institutions. #LiberalValues
@wjmaggos The reason I don't think that's the case is because there's nothing particularly new about questionable sources of information and questionable ideas being floated around socially.
I don't think it's harder than ever because it's really not that different.
It's just that all too many have normalized faulty reasoning and acceptance of bias confirmation instead of legitimate examination and consideration of claims put before us.
For example, @freemo asked about solid evidence here, and that's something I see far too few people doing.
I don't think it's hard to figure out how to think about what's true.
It's just that so many people don't.
what's new are the odds you're gonna see some false claim, because there's more incentives to push them (ads or donations and tribal love) and easier to do so (natural virality and algorithms and it's easier to fake shit). I don't think people are less critical than they used to be but they have to deal with more and you're more likely to see what they're thinking cause they'll share it instead of needing to talk to them.
I kinda agree, there are more **intentional** false claims now, but before the internet there were just as many false claims its just now they are **unintentional**.
Back before the internet finding out if something was true or not was a monumentally difficult task as we just didnt have the group resources that we have today. Encyclopedias were bulky books with tons of errors compared to wikipedia today, which still has errors, but far fewer and the knowledge is far more expansive and advanced.
@wjmaggos again I don't think it's true that the odds of seeing a false claim are particularly higher now. Yellow journalism has always been a thing. Political parties and special interest groups and kooky conspiracy theorists and just plain fiction writers have always been around.
The reason I think people are less critical now range from changes in academia where ideas like postmodernity have become more prevalent even in hard sciences through changes in the consumers of media where people actually seek out content that's really vapid and uninformed.
The fictions have always been there. It's just that these days I'm seeing more and more people eager to believe them.
@wjmaggos just to name one particular example, I found it amazing that Trump was impeached through processes in Congress where people for and against the impeachment showed absolutely no interest in figuring out what was true or false.
The hearings had people on two sides of the aisle standing up and recounting completely different versions of events, and they even called witnesses that rejected the factual claims being put on the table, but none of that even seemed to matter.
I don't think that would have been tolerated previously but now that is celebrated.
Like I said, there's nothing new about falsehoods and fabrications circulating in society. The difference is that now we generally tolerate and even celebrate them.
Big difference. I asked if there was any solid evidence, I did not ask if he was found guilty.
For OJ there was plenty of evidence we all got to see, he was just found innocent regardless.
In trumps case so far no one has provided any evidence, regardless of what the courts conclude.
technically different, yes. but we don't have video of OJ killing them. we don't have a recording of Trump saying go do what they did. from what he said at the ellipse and before about the status of the election and what others said about that day that he probably was in contact with and his actions while it was happening, we make assumptions. as we do about OJ. courts aren't always right anyway.
I reiterate. we must up our game. we never really know anything but we continue.
I didnt ask for proof, I asked for evidence.
So if your saying there are things which reasonably and objectively suggest this, then its valid. If there is enough of it to draw a conclusion, its valid.
I wouldnt put it past Trump, I even kinda expect him to be guilty. But its purely speculative unless you can list some evidence.
In the case of OJ he fled from the cops, there was blood in his car that matched the victim, and tons of pretty solid evidence. There is no evidence even remotely comparable to Trump, feel free to correct me if im wrong.
@freemo Considering how the media treats trump and every little thing he does the fact that you have to ask should say a lot.