How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

[dneal]

Biden has blown it. There was no reason to proceed with Trump's agreement withn the Taliban sans the Afghanistan government. Not that a Biden and Trump debate can generate much finger pointing. However, I cannot imagine how Trump would have handled it better.

Generally I agree, but it needs its own thread. This one is about the election.

[Chuck Naill]

Biden has blown it. There was no reason to proceed with Trump's agreement withn the Taliban sans the Afghanistan government. Not that a Biden and Trump debate can generate much finger pointing. However, I cannot imagine how Trump would have handled it better.

Generally I agree, but it needs its own thread. This one is about the election.

Sigh

[TSherbs]

This is no surprise. I actually hadn't heard any accusations that Trump (or other functionary) had planned or coordinated Jan 6. But anyway, this news came out:

Business Insider: Trump not directly involved in organizing Capitol riot violence: report.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...-report-2021-8

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Trump’s January 6 speech transcript.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...9f4502eb471f27

I don’t see how you can read this and not think Trump influenced the insurrection.

[kazoolaw]

I don’t see how you can read this and not think Trump influenced the insurrection.

Read it with an open mind to start?

[TSherbs]

Trump’s January 6 speech transcript.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...9f4502eb471f27

I don’t see how you can read this and not think Trump influenced the insurrection.

"Influenced" isn't what this new report is about. The report is about planning or coordination.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

I don’t see how you can read this and not think Trump influenced the insurrection.

Read it with an open mind to start?

Have you read it? The insurrectionists were there and later claimed they were following Trump's orders. Were their minds closed?

[Chuck Naill]

Trump’s January 6 speech transcript.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...9f4502eb471f27

I don’t see how you can read this and not think Trump influenced the insurrection.

"Influenced" isn't what this new report is about. The report is about planning or coordination.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Sure, I get it, but we saw it coming or those of us staying up to date were seeing the clouds forming during the campaign events. Even some of the insurrectionists said they felt they were following Trump's orders.

Perhaps the insurrectionists should have been listening with an "open mind" and they would have not stormed the capital.

[TSherbs]

Trump’s January 6 speech transcript.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...9f4502eb471f27

I don’t see how you can read this and not think Trump influenced the insurrection.

"Influenced" isn't what this new report is about. The report is about planning or coordination.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Sure, I get it, but we saw it coming or those of us staying up to date were seeing the clouds forming during the campaign events. Even some of the insurrectionists said they felt they were following Trump's orders.

Perhaps the insurrectionists should have been listening with an "open mind" and they would have not stormed the capital.

Yes. Trump influenced it, for sure.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

I think we need to discuss this idea of an "open mind". What does it mean to @kazoolaw to read with an open mind? If I read about Trump's words toward McCain, would I say something like, "well, he didn't really mean it", or "he was just joking"? Lets say Obama or Biden said it, would my open mind come to a different conclusion?

You see, I think @kazoolaw's comment was something easy to do and @dneal's "like" was the same. I am not singling them out except to provide and illustration of how confirmation bias can creep into our minds and cause us to believe something that we've not actually taken the time to research. I say this because had they actually read the transcript, both of them would be able to dismiss it with an "open mind" comment. This just shows we are trying to have conversations with people who are not do due diligence in vetting what they say they believe. It is much easier to yell "fake news" than actually read.

[dneal]

You see bias in FOX, but not the NYT. Start your open mind development there. That’s what I was “liking”. kazoolaw pointing out your blind spot to you.

You want someone to acknowledge that people could take Trump’s words to mean something else? That they could construe it as an incitement to the worst, deadliest, most horrible event to ever happen to AOC on American soil? Sure. I can acknowledge that. Is that what he intended? I don’t know. You don’t either. One of us makes unfounded assertions…

You on the other hand, refuse to see that a reasonable person could be suspicious of the first time in history events of the recent election. I clearly see why they believe it. I’ll suspend judgement until I see more evidence. You and the other TDS sufferers? It is something that is simply inconceivable. They must be crazy Trumpians. 74 million of them. Labeled by you because they do not accept the nonsense that pours out of your head. Because you are unable to consider all points rationally. Because you are not only completely unaware, but in denial when it’s repeatedly demonstrated to you.

You simply avoid, dodge, ignore, and deflect.

[Chuck Naill]

You see bias in FOX, but not the NYT. Start your open mind development there. That’s what I was “liking”. kazoolaw pointing out your blind spot to you.

You want someone to acknowledge that people could take Trump’s words to mean something else? That they could construe it as an incitement to the worst, deadliest, most horrible event to ever happen to AOC on American soil? Sure. I can acknowledge that. Is that what he intended? I don’t know. You don’t either. One of us makes unfounded assertions…

You on the other hand, refuse to see that a reasonable person could be suspicious of the first time in history events of the recent election. I clearly see why they believe it. I’ll suspend judgement until I see more evidence. You and the other TDS sufferers? It is something that is simply inconceivable. They must be crazy Trumpians. 74 million of them. Labeled by you because they do not accept the nonsense that pours out of your head. Because you are unable to consider all points rationally. Because you are not only completely unaware, but in denial when it’s repeatedly demonstrated to you.

You simply avoid, dodge, ignore, and deflect.

I mentioned Brit and Chris who are Fox as people with whom I would listen. They are different. Chris showed courage and self control during the Trump Biden debate. So, while I see bias from Hanity and what’s his name, there are exceptions.

Again, did you read the transcript. No reason to continue if you haven’t because you won’t understand the context for the examples I’m providing where an open mind could only interpret what he obviously stated.

I am suspicious, but not of an election process. I am suspicious of what powers are in place that could take away the will of the people and change it to the will of one and his minions.

For someone who chose not to be politically engaged, you have no standing to be this or that. You lacked courage and resolve just like your stance on vaccines. You’re neither here nor there, double minded and unstable I suspect. Perhaps you’re a poster child for passive aggression .

[dneal]

I am suspicious of what powers are in place that could take away the will of the people and change it to the will of one and his minions.

It boils down to this, Chuck. You only seem to only see one boogyman. He happens to be orange and his last name is Trump.

I see lots of "boogymen". There are many powers in the world attempting to sway peoples' wills. They're very good at it - pick a days news cycle and it's clear. Business influences politics. Businesses are happy to invest money in politicians. There is a reason five of the ten richest counties in the nation surround DC. There are ideologues with a lot of money too.

You're so lost in Trump and your wokism that it's all you see. That's the point you're not getting. It's obvious.

Just look at your last sentence. Look how much you assume. Look at the assertions, the self-righteousness, the personal attack. You describe everything you are doing, projecting it on me as you type it. It's actually amazing to watch you (and others) believe this delusional construct you've accepted. All because my words don't fit your narrative. Your brain locks up and you regurgitate the same predictable shit as every other internet hyena (I love that term, thank you Eric Weinstein...).

For someone who chose not to be politically engaged, you have no standing to be this or that. You lacked courage and resolve just like your stance on vaccines. You’re neither here nor there, double minded and unstable I suspect. Perhaps you’re a poster child for passive aggression .

Remember, you guys were the ones who defaulted to calling a Slovenian a "Trumpist" or "Trumpian" or whatever, as soon as you detected something that didn't fit your narrative. It's all you can see. It's a pity, really.

[Chuck Naill]

You last post is weak. I know you’re trying to save face here and maintain some relevance, but it will take more…just saying dude . Lol!!

[Chuck Naill]

You last post is weak. I know you’re trying to save face here and maintain some relevance, but it will take more…just saying dude . Lol!!

Did you read the transcript?

[Chuck Naill]

You last post is weak. I know you’re trying to save face here and maintain some relevance, but it will take more…just saying dude . Lol!!

Did you read the transcript? If you can’t read your man’s words, you shouldn’t post.

[Chuck Naill]

New oped from the NYT speaking about school kids not being okay with the pandemic continuing.

A question for the Trumpians ( those with balls that voted and the one who didn’t) is this just the biased journalists talking?

[dneal]

Reuters: FBI finds scant evidence us capitol-attack was coordinated.

Clearly the FBI has been brainwashed by Chuck’s Trumpians.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

[Chuck Naill]

Did you read the transcript?

[dneal]

Did you read the transcript?

Your link? No. The same thing months ago?

The TDS folks must be in quite a quandary. Is the FBI legit or not? Is "sources said" good enough now, if it blows your ridiculous "insurrection" conspiracy theory? Does the fact that Reuters published it make a difference?