How do you figure? — flannel jesus

It is just my own opinion.

You might argue that he didn't want what happened at January 6 to happen, but he certainly didn't even do the bare minimum to stop it. Not so much as a tweet. — flannel jesus

How can we stop a mob at all? We are already used to the flammable Trump's vocabulary, and how quickly it spreads amongst the people. His personality is high, and when he says any statement he will not go back. The sympathisers took his words or message so feverishly.

How can we stop a mob at all? — javi2541997

He had many options. He took none of them.

The purpose of the modern press is to propagandize us, not inform us. No? — Merkwurdichliebe

I cannot see otherwise. At least, I cannot find a real press where the news is told objectively. It is clear that they are aware of their power of information and how quickly it is shared around the world. All filtrated information tends to be biassed.

You might argue that he didn't want what happened at January 6 to happen, but he certainly didn't even do the bare minimum to stop it. Not so much as a tweet — flannel jesus

Does he have a legal obligation to do anything about it?

filtrated — javi2541997

That is a fine term

it paints a picture of culpability. If it's not his legal responsibility, it's his moral responsibility. The fact that he watched it on TV , with numerous people begging him to call his supporters off, and refused to do so for 3 hours - if it's not a crime, it is at the very least an instance of moral neglect of his duties. And it does make it look like he wanted it to happen, which supports the case that he incited it, which is very likely a crime.

it paints a picture of culpability. If it's not his legal responsibility, it's his moral responsibility. The fact that he watched it on TV , with numerous people begging him to call his supporters off, and revised to do so for 3 hours - if it's not a crime, it is at the very least an instance of moral neglect of his duties. And it does make it look like he wanted it to happen, which supports the case that he incited it, which is very likely a crime — flannel jesus

We are, of course, speaking extemporaneously, so I will say that is a long story to implicate him for sedition. There are equal presidential crimes that have a much more direct line, like bush and iraq war, or obama and nsa spy program.

I'm not interested in whataboutism.

I'm not interested in whataboutism — flannel jesus

Except when you give a whatabout:

it paints a picture of culpability. If it's not his legal responsibility, it's his moral responsibility. The fact that he watched it on TV , with numerous people begging him to call his supporters off, and revised to do so for 3 hours - if it's not a crime, it is at the very least an instance of moral neglect of his duties. And it does make it look like he wanted it to happen, which supports the case that he incited it, which is very likely a crime — flannel jesus

Hypocrite cretin

I don't think you know what whataboutism is.

This thread title indicates the conversation is about trump. It's not about whether starting the war in Vietnam was a crime. It's about trump.

It's not hypocritical of me to say I'm not interested in whataboutism about the crimes of random other unrelated people from long before trump was president.

ok, i won't mention anything that contradicts the narrative you are trying to push.

Gracious of you.

who gets to decides who we get to censor? Can I have that job?

I'm not sure where the right place to submit applications is. I'll let you know if I find out.

And when the vote was challenged, not a single mainstream media outlet wanted the ratings bonanza of turning it into a scandal. No court would hear it. But the same courts were eager to elevate a guided tour of the Capitol building as something akin to the storming of the Bastille. — yebiga

Interesting comparison, minus: the Bastille is lame in comparison to tha Capitol Building

What makes the comparison interesting? They reacted one way to one thing, and an entirely different way to an entirely different thing.

"I went around handing out shits on plates at all the tables and no one was eating it, then suddenly a professional chef starts handing out perfectly seared steak and suddenly everyone has an appetite!"

I don't think that's a particularly interesting scenario. Of course people react differently to different things.

Poor old Trump, the media star, never gets a fair break from the media, does he?
Poor old Trump, the compulsive litigator and packer of the supreme court, never gets a fair break from the law.
Poor old Trump, not a dollar to his name, working hard for the people for no personal gain.

Just like Jesus really.

I've often heard people claim that Trump won the 2020 election or that the election was rigged against him, but I never hear any of the details that convince people why they believe these things. If Trump won, how many votes did he win by? How many electoral votes did Trump get and how many did Biden get? If you can't answer these questions, how can you claim Trump won? If the election was rigged, who rigged it and how did they do it? When we ask for evidence, all we ever seem to get are hand waving generalities and anecdotes: "The evidence is everywhere" or "people have written books about it" or "there is lots of video footage of people stuffing ballot boxes." But if we're talking about nationwide election fraud we're talking about an immense conspiracy with many, many participants. Who are they? What are their names? Who is pulling the strings, and who planned it? When specific people are named, like Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, it turns out not to be true. When Raffensperger didn't go along with him, Trump accused him of being in on the scam: "Because of what you've done to the president..." When Fox News accused Dominion Voting Systems of widespread elector fraud, they had to settle out of court for $787 million. If Fox was telling the truth, they wouldn't have given Dominion one red cent. As with most conspiracy theories, it turns out to be much safer, legally speaking, to not name names but to keep the accusations vague like "the deep state" and "the liberal elite" and so on.

There was “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”. This is according to their own admission.

“Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation [the censorship of Hunter Biden’s laptop] and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.”

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Of course, it all favored one candidate.

the strength of a conspiracy theory decreases as more people have to be involved to enact the conspiracy and keep it a secret. Hordes of people don't tend to be good at keeping secrets. Have you factored that into how likely you think this conspiracy is to be the truth?

They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation [the censorship of Hunter Biden’s laptop] — NOS4A2

That rings a bell! Oh yes, I debated it with @flannel jesus a few hours ago, but it seems that if the media manipulate us to not focusing on Baden's shit, it is acceptable.

They are not keeping it secret. My guess is they knew they couldn’t keep their election rigging secret, so they did what they already admitted to doing, control the flow of information. Since smooth-brains tend to believe everything these people write, all they had to do was say their efforts were to “save democracy”, and other glittering generalities. “They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. ” Riiiiiiiight.

They are not keeping it secret. — NOS4A2

If they are open about deliberately stealing the election via fake votes of some kind, please show me. Where's this confession?

the media manipulate us — javi2541997

There is no single entity "the media". Fox News is a member of the media. All those sources that are competing to be to the right of Fox are members of the media.

I agree. But I complain about how some consider some media more reliable than another, when all of them are part of the same problem.

There was “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”. This is according to their own admission.

“Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation [the censorship of Hunter Biden’s laptop] and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.”

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Of course, it all favored one candidate.

But I complain about how some consider some media more reliable than another, when all of them are part of the same problem. — javi2541997

Some sources are more reliable than others. Which is not to say that any source always gets everything right.

There was “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”. This is according to their own admission. — NOS4A2

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

Also:

Trump and his allies were running their own campaign to spoil the election. The President spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.

Of course, these efforts all favored one candidate.

Can you point me to the place in this article where they confess to falsifying votes?

I never said they were confessing to falsifying votes.