Re-boot The fight is still on

[phylodog]

Maybe they didn't get the message.

Still Trump's fault though I'm sure

 

[jamil]

Why do they have to be Trumpers or Trump supporter? Why can they not be conservatives who are very real and very legitimate concerns about not only the election but what has been happening in the media?

It ain't about Trump

Why? I think it's because there's a distinction. The reason people were there was because they thought the election was stolen. There is a large overlap between conservatives and Trumpers. But not all conservatives are Trumpers. And I think I'm pretty safe in saying that the people who were at that rally and the people who believe the election was stolen tend to be Trumpers more than just conservatives.

 

[jamil]

Still Trump's fault though I'm sure

Well, I think the only thing that would make Trump at fault would be the extent to which he's convinced people to be so confident that they believe with all their hearts that they had to break into the Capital to save their country. Trump did use that kind of language. But he also made it very clear in his speech that "peacefully" was the way. And those who went over early may not have gotten that message.

The people who are claiming dogwhistles are likely full of ****.

 

[phylodog]

This is why I created the thread with the poll. Calling everyone a Trumper is an attempt to discredit their point of view. It ain't about the man.

 

[flightsimmer]

This is why I created the thread with the poll. Calling everyone a Trumper is an attempt to discredit their point of view. It ain't about the man.

That's right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Can any we all agree now that humans weren't descended from an alien species?

How can any of us really know the answer to this? It has been put out that we were.

I think as some people have said, pretty much no one who broke in wore masks. And they probably all had their phones on them. The FBI probably has a list of everyone who was there. And of course they have in custody the people who were arrested already.

Okay. How about a compromise? Can we all agree that most likely we weren't descended from an alien species, and that it was probably mostly the ardent Trumpers who broke into the Capital? I agree with Max that of all the people who broke in, I doubt most of them understood the gravity of what they were doing. Seeing that many people on video just milling about as if they're browsing through a museum, I just don't think they were there to take over the government. But they were most likely Trumpers.

BS! If Bruce Jenner can be a woman, I'm a Klingon!

 

[jamil]

This is why I created the thread with the poll. Calling everyone a Trumper is an attempt to discredit their point of view. It ain't about the man.

I'm not calling everyone a Trumper, and calling them a Trumper isn't an attempt to discredit them. "Trumper" just means ardent supporter. I'm saying there is a distinction between people who ardently support Trump and conservatives generally. Most conservatives do support Trump. Possibly even a majority are what I would say are ardent supporters. I think it's only the ardent supporters who would have gone to the rally and taken part in the violence.

 

[foszoe]

Except, their leader did tell them to peacefully make their voices heard. But it's been reported that many Trumpers were at the capital before the speech even began. Maybe they didn't get the message.

So did Jesus and one guy still lost his ear

 

[phylodog]

I'm not calling everyone a Trumper, and calling them a Trumper isn't an attempt to discredit them. "Trumper" just means ardent supporter. I'm saying there is a distinction between people who ardently support Trump and conservatives generally. Most conservatives do support Trump. Possibly even a majority are what I would say are ardent supporters. I think it's only the ardent supporters who would have gone to the rally and taken part in the violence.

The term Trumper has become a means of belittling someone while stripping them of their actual identity. It implies people support the man himself and would do so regardless and that is not the case.

 

[buckwacker]

Okay. About Antifa. Do we all agree now that it was not an Antifa false flag op? This was Trumpers storming the capital building. I mean. I found it curious that people who indicated some support for the "patriots" storming the capital also claimed it was an Antifa false flag. It kinda can't be both.

My contention was that making definitive statements about the absence of antifa involvement without definitive proof that they weren't is a bit ironic coming from the same people who say that systemic election fraud didn't happen absent concrete proof that it did. I did not claim that I believed that it was an antifa false flag, only that it was reasonable to assume that they might see an opportunity to push a volatile crowd over the edge by blending in a whipping up emotions all in an effort to make their political enemies look bad. Do I know they did this, no; does anyone else know they didn't, no. It doesn't mean I think antifa bears the responsibility for entering the Capitol. But if we're demanding proof for everything, let's be consistent.

 

[Ingomike]

This is why I created the thread with the poll. Calling everyone a Trumper is an attempt to discredit their point of view. It ain't about the man.

They hate him because they hate those who support his ideals, which Trump took up over time. We support him because he supports our ideals...

If this comes down I'm good with President Flynn...

 

[jamil]

The term Trumper has become a means of belittling someone while stripping them of their actual identity. It implies people support the man himself and would do so regardless and that is not the case.

I've been using the term since the 2016 primaries. I've never used it to mean anything more than "ardent Trump supporter", because that's too long to type out. Maybe I could just say ATS in the future, but I doubt people who haven't read this would know what I meant.

 

[phylodog]

It wasn't any more accurate a term in 2016 than it is now. The people haven't changed since Trump decided to run for office. You could call them conservatives, staunch conservatives or even republicans, that would be closer to the truth than the term Trumper.

 

[IndyDave1776]

They hate him because they hate those who support his ideals, which Trump took up over time. We support him because he supports our ideals...

If this comes down I'm good with President Flynn...

Same here. Also good with Kristi Noem (Gov SD).

 

[CampingJosh]

My contention was that making definitive statements about the absence of antifa involvement without definitive proof that they weren't is a bit ironic coming from the same people who say that systemic election fraud didn't happen absent concrete proof that it did. I did not claim that I believed that it was an antifa false flag, only that it was reasonable to assume that they might see an opportunity to push a volatile crowd over the edge by blending in a whipping up emotions all in an effort to make their political enemies look bad. Do I know they did this, no; does anyone else know they didn't, no. It doesn't mean I think antifa bears the responsibility for entering the Capitol. But if we're demanding proof for everything, let's be consistent.

No, that's not consistency. The one claiming that something did happen is the one with the burden of proof.

You can't start with the assumption that the thing did happen and require proof of the negative.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, that's not consistency. The one claiming that something did happen is the one with the burden of proof.

You can't start with the assumption that the thing did happen and require proof of the negative.

The bottom line is that when arguing with ostriches a reasonable discussion of any subject is not going to happen even if you bring a shovel to dig their heads out of the sand.

 

[foszoe]

Why do they have to be Trumpers or Trump supporter? Why can they not be conservatives who are very real and very legitimate concerns about not only the election but what has been happening in the media?

It ain't about Trump

From my perspective. Some People posting here make it two sides. For us or against us.

If one expresses something disagreeing with Trump someone will respond with Orange man bad or
TDS

For my part I do try to add adjectives like diehard or extreme to distinguish between the average Trump supporter and well those that are more extreme, because, after all I voted for Trump and consider myself a Trump supporter.

I had no problem with most of his tweets or policies as a person or voter, but I could understand why others did. Sometimes sacrifices should to be made for the team to have a better chance at a win.
Those sacrifices for Trump could have been just take the edge off a little. I belive Trump could have won both the popular and electoral vote if he would have done so.

Yet, while I think Trump hurt himself, I am not sure what hurt his chances him or his extreme fringe that vocally assaulted those in disagreement with SOME of what Trump said and did as ignorant, stupid or some such.

An example, IRL I could talk to someone that could rattler off a litany of Biden sins AND tell me they did disagree with some if Trumos tweets but nobody's perfect. When asked what tweets? Crickets

 

[jamil]

It wasn't any more accurate a term in 2016 than it is now. The people haven't changed since Trump decided to run for office. You could call them conservatives, staunch conservatives or even republicans, that would be closer to the truth than the term Trumper.

I don't think that's true. Are you saying that Trumper, conservative, staunch conservative, or even Republican are all interchangeable? I don't think they are. I think a Trumper is an ardent Trump supporter, and that has a meaning in itself. It means people support the man, and sometimes to the point where they will defend even indefensible actions. I know that's not something that they themselves would admit. But that certainly is my and many other people's observation. But it also means not just a supporter of the man, but a supporter of the Trump ideology.

And let me explain what I mean by that. We perceive a concept, and often can't wrap the idea up into something articuable. Trump sort of did that. I mean, before Trump a lot of you guys seemed to lean fairly libertarian. And then Trump came along with the America First sort of thing, and even some things that weren't really part of what you all seemed to support prior to him. But that sort of populism rang true for a lot of you. And I remember back in the 2016 primary seeing a switch click in many of you, and you sort of became "ardent Trumpers". I mean nothing derogotory about that. I'm not all that fond of the seemingly blind support though.

But anyway, Trump sort of became the icon for what I'll just call the idea of Trump. Which is America First, and all the other things Trump has pushed for. And I'll say I agree with a lot of that. But there are also some lines Trump crossed where many of you decided those lines don't matter anymore. And that's the difference between what I'd say is my own conservative values and yours. And I'll even say I've changed a bit too from what I thought back in 2016. I now think that sides are just an evolutionary construct, and are no longer necessary. That picking out the things that are "right", and rejecting the things that are "wrong", regardless of sides, is more betterer.

 

[phylodog]

Most of the extreme fringe you mention don't exist. The media would have you believe KKK membership shot up 12,000% the day Trump took office. That's complete BS. There have always been fringe groups, there have always been conservatives, there have always been republicans.

It's a label created to distract and discredit. I supported Trump when he did things I believed were good for the country. I did not support Trump when did things I didn't agree with like his ridiculous twitter antagonizing. I'll admit I did find it entertaining at times but still think it was a horrible idea.

 

[jamil]

No, that's not consistency. The one claiming that something did happen is the one with the burden of proof.

You can't start with the assumption that the thing did happen and require proof of the negative.

but that's just internet argumentation 101. What about if you really want to know if the claim is true? And I'm not talking about stuff.

So, for example, say there's a claim that Hunter Biden left his computer at some repair shop, and the repair guy took an image of the hard drive. And it had all kinds of stuff on it that might pertain to him potentially peddling the influence of his father, the former VP, and at the time a candidate for POTUS. How far would you go to be reasonably sure how much of that story is true? If someone just claims it, are you going to sit around until they provide proof? Or are you going to go find out because it's important, and you're curious if we're about to elect someone who might peddle their power?