Login

**Maxmars** · 06-02-2024, 08:00 PM

(06-02-2024, 07:00 PM)PhyloCFly Wrote:

From the source link above:

"Find the jurors. All of them. Take no prisoners," wrote one user on a Trump-focused message board.

Notice how One user wrote...

.... and now "all" MAGA suppporters can be said to be calling for riots? .... "activist journalism" much?

I can understand not wanting to open themselves up for legal liability by only citing "a Trump-focused" message board, huh. Sweet interpretation of the concept of "reporting."

FlyersFan · 06-03-2024, 03:38 AM

(06-02-2024, 08:00 PM)Maxmars Wrote: From the source link above:

"Find the jurors. All of them. Take no prisoners," wrote one user on a Trump-focused message board.

Notice how One user wrote...

.... and now "all" MAGA suppporters can be said to be calling for riots? .... "activist journalism" much?

I can understand not wanting to open themselves up for legal liability by only citing "a Trump-focused" message board, huh. Sweet interpretation of the concept of "reporting."

Yep. There ya' go. Exactly. Trump received over 72 million votes in 2020, and yet the media say all Trump supporters are calling for violence when in fact the media only finds a handful of anonymous posts on social media saying so, and those anonymous posts could be from ANYONE including from the left trying to make Trump voters look unhinged. Trolls on both the left and the right do that ... go on social media and pretend to be the other side and make stupid posts trying to make the other side look bad.

It is well known that the media reports politics in an inflammatory way and that it has agenda. Useful idiots suck it up because it says what they want to hear and it feeds their hate and their own opinion. Confirmation bias.

The verdict was Thursday. Today is Monday. There have been no riots. No one has been hanged. No one has gone out and burned down the White House. No one has shot at a juror. etc etc. Could something happen in the future? Sure. But considering that the fake J6 'insurrection' (as the media calls it) was only a couple of hundred people and it was pretty pathetic, I doubt that anything big is going to happen this time either. Also considering the behavior of the left with the George Floyd riots ... actual burning down of buildings and mass looting etc etc ... I think America is more likely to see civil unrest if Trump IS elected rather than if he is not. That's what history tells us.

I could end up being wrong and there could be unrest from Trump supporters like the unrest we saw from the left during the George Floyd riots. But I doubt it. Only time will tell. In the mean time, I'm sure the 'media' will continue to fan the flames with their 'enhanced' one sided political stories and get segments of the population, who suck it up, all uptight.

K218b · This post was last modified 06-03-2024, 04:36 AM by K218b.

I do agree that both liberals and conservatives can and do use their media friends in away it suits them. There is no doubt about and we have seen it many times in the past. It will be repeated again and again. But the calls for riots and violence from some of his supporters is not something new. It has happened in the past, it's happening now, and it will happen in the future.

(06-03-2024, 03:38 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: Yep. There ya' go. Exactly. Trump received over 72 million votes in 2020, and yet the media say all Trump supporters are calling for violence when in fact the media only finds a handful of anonymous posts on social media saying so, and those anonymous posts could be from ANYONE including from the left trying to make Trump voters look unhinged. Trolls on both the left and the right do that ... go on social media and pretend to be the other side and make stupid posts trying to make the other side look bad.

It is well known that the media reports politics in an inflammatory way and that it has agenda. Useful idiots suck it up because it says what they want to hear and it feeds their hate and their own opinion. Confirmation bias.

The verdict was Thursday. Today is Monday. There have been no riots. No one has been hanged. No one has gone out and burned down the White House. No one has shot at a juror. etc etc. Could something happen in the future? Sure. But considering that the fake J6 'insurrection' (as the media calls it) was only a couple of hundred people and it was pretty pathetic, I doubt that anything big is going to happen this time either. Also considering the behavior of the left with the George Floyd riots ... actual burning down of buildings and mass looting etc etc ... I think America is more likely to see civil unrest if Trump IS elected rather than if he is not. That's what history tells us.

I could end up being wrong and there could be unrest from Trump supporters like the unrest we saw from the left during the George Floyd riots. But I doubt it. Only time will tell. In the mean time, I'm sure the 'media' will continue to fan the flames with their 'enhanced' one sided political stories and get segments of the population, who suck it up, all uptight.

You are making a lot of strawman arguments.

The media didn't say all his supporters are in are calling for violence and riots but some of his supporters. And that's true. It's factual. They ve done it in the past and acted upon these threats when they stormed the Capitol.

It is Monday but the press reported on the threats made by some of his supporters. They didn't say these threats will materialise or are likely to materialise.

Do you still think your opinion is more reliable as a source thsn all the sources I have provided? Ok, sometimes the newspapers could report this that are wrong and not factual. But is this the case?

**Maxmars**

(06-03-2024, 04:30 AM)K218b Wrote: I do agree that both liberals and conservatives can and do use their media friends in away it suits them. There is no doubt about and we have seen it many times in the past. It will be repeated again and again. But the calls for riots and violence from some of his supporters is not something new. It has happened in the past, it's happening now, and it will happen in the future.

You are making a lot of strawman arguments.

The media didn't say all his supporters are in are calling for violence and riots but some of his supporters. And that's true. It's factual. They ve done it in the past and acted upon these threats when they stormed the Capitol.

It is Monday but the press reported on the threats made by some of his supporters. They didn't say these threats will materialise or are likely to materialise.

Do you still think your opinion is more reliable as a source thsn all the sources I have provided? Ok, sometimes the newspapers could report this that are wrong and not factual. But is this the case?

When I make a statement that "Supporters are calling for riots and violence," in what way does that represent that NOT ALL supporters are calling for riots and violence?

It is not a matter of what is true or not when I invoke blanket judgements... it implies that the problem is in the supporters, not some, not a few, not radical elements, not some tiny proportion of people speaking of themselves and thier wishes,... it means exactly what it says... "supporters."

If one is a supporter, they are now subject to the assertion. It is an accusation against one example - cast upon anyone with whom 'they say' they agree. This is the toxicity of partisan misrepresentation. It creates a foundational premise upon which all manner of spurious aspersions can now rest. The title means what it says... that's why it was crafted and selected for publication... To engender a thought in the audience, "embrace this" is the purpose of the title, "this is what it is all about."

It is the one thing that causes me to repeatedly post that what most of us suffer from, is a lack of understanding of rhetoric... one of those "three R's" that was ejected by educator-leaders decades ago. Reading, Writing, Rhetoric... foundational elements of effective understanding of communication. Without a focus on rhetoric, we are only "victims" of whatever the people with the sanctioned platform produce. Hence, "You agree with the 'MAGA people'? You must be a violent element of society!"

The press reported on a single instance of some misguided person uttering a repugnant idea... and still you summarize as saying "some" Trump supporters... not ONE... but "some." (Yes, "one" is "some"... but that kind of litigiousness is far beneath us, save that for lawyer-town.) I only point out how easy it is, how casually we 'repackage,' the media by reinforcing their verbal 'sleight of hand.' And I won't posture to attack you on what you "didn't" say... but I am allowed to interpret just as anyone else is... so I can just as easily point out that you also never indicated just how unlikely this one persons' utterances represent a newsworthy political call for anti-social behavior.

You persist in evoking the January 6th "riot"... but no other riots? Can we take that up elsewhere please? This is about the Trump trial results engendering violence, no?

FlyersFan · This post was last modified 06-03-2024, 01:00 PM by FlyersFan.

(06-03-2024, 12:29 PM)Maxmars Wrote: You persist in evoking the January 6th "riot"... but no other riots?

.... a pretty lame-ass supposed 'riot/insurrection'. There were 71 million Trump voters, and only 2,000 were involved in the one time breaking and entering into the Capital building idiocy, and I think only one was carrying a firearm last I read. And the Capital guards actually escorted the so called rioters through the building. Nothing had happened before that. Nothing has happened after that. And those people didn't engage in actual rioting like the George Floyd riots where hundreds of thousands took part and burned down government buildings, burned down private buildings, and mass looted from stores. They engaged in trespassing and perhaps some vandalism (not sure on that one) and should have been arrested for it. Pretty sure they were.

The verdict was Thursday. Today is Monday. Nothing has happened. No one was hung. No one was shot. No government buildings have been burned down. No one was looted. Could something happen in the future? Sure. But it's highly unlikely given the history. Only time will tell.

The article in the OP quotes a handful of anonymous online posts calling for violence. A handful out of 71 million Trump voters. Anyone could have made those. They could be real Trump supporters. They just as easily might not be. They could be serious. They might not be. But the media makes it sound like it's a giant threat and that all the Trump supporters are going nutz. They obviously are not. Articles like that, that insinuate crap, just feed the partisan idiots who want the crap to be true.

K218b · 06-03-2024, 01:08 PM

(06-03-2024, 12:29 PM)Maxmars Wrote: When I make a statement that "Supporters are calling for riots and violence," in what way does that represent that NOT ALL supporters are calling for riots and violence?

It is not a matter of what is true or not when I invoke blanket judgements... it implies that the problem is in the supporters, not some, not a few, not radical elements, not some tiny proportion of people speaking of themselves and thier wishes,... it means exactly what it says... "supporters."

If one is a supporter, they are now subject to the assertion. It is an accusation against one example - cast upon anyone with whom 'they say' they agree. This is the toxicity of partisan misrepresentation. It creates a foundational premise upon which all manner of spurious aspersions can now rest. The title means what it says... that's why it was crafted and selected for publication... To engender a thought in the audience, "embrace this" is the purpose of the title, "this is what it is all about."

It is the one thing that causes me to repeatedly post that what most of us suffer from, is a lack of understanding of rhetoric... one of those "three R's" that was ejected by educator-leaders decades ago. Reading, Writing, Rhetoric... foundational elements of effective understanding of communication. Without a focus on rhetoric, we are only "victims" of whatever the people with the sanctioned platform produce. Hence, "You agree with the 'MAGA people'? You must be a violent element of society!"

The press reported on a single instance of some misguided person uttering a repugnant idea... and still you summarize as saying "some" Trump supporters... not ONE... but "some." (Yes, "one" is "some"... but that kind of litigiousness is far beneath us, save that for lawyer-town.) I only point out how easy it is, how casually we 'repackage,' the media by reinforcing their verbal 'sleight of hand.' And I won't posture to attack you on what you "didn't" say... but I am allowed to interpret just as anyone else is... so I can just as easily point out that you also never indicated just how unlikely this one persons' utterances represent a newsworthy political call for anti-social behavior.

You persist in evoking the January 6th "riot"... but no other riots? Can we take that up elsewhere please? This is about the Trump trial results engendering violence, no?

The January 6 riots were given as an example of riots that materialised after threats were made at that time. So it serves as a comparison. There is no generalisation as we clearly discuss some of his supporters and not all. Online threats and calls for violence and riots can be easily made by everyone in our days. It's not even something unexpected.

Imagine what could happen if Trump loses the election?! Although I think it's more likely he will win this time. I can speculate based on the history and rhetoric by this politician who seems to be able to influence a lot of people who believe their country is about to collapse or has collapsed and they need to take it back and so on.

FlyersFan · This post was last modified 06-03-2024, 01:16 PM by FlyersFan.

(06-03-2024, 12:29 PM)Maxmars Wrote: When I make a statement that "Supporters are calling for riots and violence," in what way does that represent that NOT ALL supporters are calling for riots and violence?

It is not a matter of what is true or not when I invoke blanket judgements... it implies that the problem is in the supporters, not some, not a few, not radical elements, not some tiny proportion of people speaking of themselves and thier wishes,... it means exactly what it says... "supporters."

It's actually the Trump supporters who are in danger ... not the non-Trump supporters. Now that the verdict is in, we've got an elected US DC official calling all Trump supporters 'domestic terrorists' and that all 81 million of them should be investigated ... Constitutional rights be damned. It's the ones screaming that the Trump supporters are violent, even though they never have been, that are the ones dividing this country and going against the Constitution. Not the other way around.

(and no, I"m not a Trump fan. So no one go there ... )

Nutjob Maxine Waters Says All Trump Voters are Domestic Terrorists and Should All Be Investigated

Quote:Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., claimed former President Trump was instigating violence in the U.S. and suggested that his supporters were "domestic terrorists" who should be investigated for possibly preparing for a "civil war."

"I'm worried that he's so divisive and that he's talking about retribution, and they're talking about revenge and I think that that's dangerous. He's even mentioned civil war at one point, talked about there would be bloodshed," Waters said on MSNBC Sunday, referring to Trump's rhetoric.

During the media appearance, the congresswoman vowed that she would ask the "criminal justice system" to find out what is "going on with the domestic terrorists," seeming to refer to the presumptive Republican nominee's supporters.

"Are they preparing a civil war against us?" she continued. "Should we be concerned about our safety? What is [Trump] doing with this divisive language? It is dangerous.

Notice how she lies and says Trump called for bloodshed. He did not. He was talking to the auto industry workers and said that it would be a bloodbath for the auto industry if he's not elected. She lied and used that lie as an excuse to take away the Constitutional rights of Trump voters. THEY are the ones in danger ... not the Biden voters.

(06-03-2024, 01:08 PM)K218b Wrote: The January 6 riots were given ...

There were not 'riots'. Not multiple. There was one incident of breaking and entering with 2,000 people in one place. That's it. Pretty damn small and contained. Nothing before that. Nothing after that.

K218b · 06-03-2024, 01:30 PM

(06-03-2024, 12:53 PM)FlyersFan Wrote: .... a pretty lame-ass supposed 'riot/insurrection'. There were 71 million Trump voters, and only 2,000 were involved in the one time breaking and entering into the Capital building idiocy, and I think only one was carrying a firearm last I read. And the Capital guards actually escorted the so called rioters through the building. Nothing had happened before that. Nothing has happened after that. And those people didn't engage in actual rioting like the George Floyd riots where hundreds of thousands took part and burned down government buildings, burned down private buildings, and mass looted from stores. They engaged in trespassing and perhaps some vandalism (not sure on that one) and should have been arrested for it. Pretty sure they were.

The verdict was Thursday. Today is Monday. Nothing has happened. No one was hung. No one was shot. No government buildings have been burned down. No one was looted. Could something happen in the future? Sure. But it's highly unlikely given the history. Only time will tell.

The article in the OP quotes a handful of anonymous online posts calling for violence. A handful out of 71 million Trump voters. Anyone could have made those. They could be real Trump supporters. They just as easily might not be. They could be serious. They might not be. But the media makes it sound like it's a giant threat and that all the Trump supporters are going nutz. They obviously are not. Articles like that, that insinuate crap, just feed the partisan idiots who want the crap to be true.

The article I have linked comes directly from various sources from all political parts of the spectrum and not left wing sources as you said. Regardless of the circumstances this reaction by some of his supporters is expected. If I was to guess it and write an article using only my personal opinion I would have been successful in predicting this kind of reaction.

The comparison you made of the 2,000 supporters who entered the Capitol out of the 71 million is very unfortunate. I don't know where to start but it's not the topic of the conversation. Imagine if there are 2,000 who stormed the Capitol, how many others had the same idea.

The idea that nothing has happened after is again a personal opinion. Making threats of violence and riots because Trump was convicted is nothing to you? Maybe you want to claim the links I used are not reliable? You implied it yesterday.

FlyersFan · This post was last modified 06-03-2024, 01:38 PM by FlyersFan.

(06-03-2024, 01:08 PM)K218b Wrote: Imagine what could happen if Trump loses the election?!

Pffft .... so everyone should use their imaginations and pretend about what they think could happen based on their own biases and based on the partisan garbage that they wallow in ... garbage like the opening post saying that Trump supporters are supporting violence when in fact they just found a handful of anonymous online posts and decided to fear monger over them. Imagination ... based on crap like Maxine Waters just put out about how she thinks all Trump supporters are domestic terrorists.

Wonderful idea. Everyone use their imaginations and let them fly. Well here you go .... My Imagination tells me that if Trump loses then that day will be just like any other. That's pretty much established history. But if Trump wins, then the left will have a melt down, burning down buildings and using the loss as an excuse to riot and loot. Trump won, lets go steal free stuff!!! That also is established history.

(06-03-2024, 01:30 PM)K218b Wrote: Imagine if there are 2,000 who stormed the Capitol, how many others had the same idea.

What a joke. Seriously. 2,000 people did it so that MUST mean that they all wanted to. IMAGINE it. If you IMAGINE it, it must be true.

Pffft. I"m done with this thread. this is dumb.

K218b · This post was last modified 06-03-2024, 02:05 PM by K218b.

(06-03-2024, 01:36 PM)FlyersFan Wrote: Pffft .... so everyone should use their imaginations and pretend about what they think could happen based on their own biases and based on the partisan garbage that they wallow in ... garbage like the opening post saying that Trump supporters are supporting violence when in fact they just found a handful of anonymous online posts and decided to fear monger over them. Imagination ... based on crap like Maxine Waters just put out about how she thinks all Trump supporters are domestic terrorists.

Wonderful idea. Everyone use their imaginations and let them fly. Well here you go .... My Imagination tells me that if Trump loses then that day will be just like any other. That's pretty much established history. But if Trump wins, then the left will have a melt down, burning down buildings and using the loss as an excuse to riot and loot. Trump won, lets go steal free stuff!!! That also is established history.

What a joke. Seriously. 2,000 people did it so that MUST mean that they all wanted to. IMAGINE it. If you IMAGINE it, it must be true.

Pffft. I"m done with this thread. this is dumb.

You can still extrapolate based on what happened before.
It's not imagination as you called it trying at the same time to downplay the events as if nothing happened and regardless of the fact that many of his supporters were convicted later on for the storming of the Capitol.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-...7e55bedaa5

More than 1,230 people have been charged with hundreds of convictions. Most of them received light sentences by the way.

So judging from the past it's not unlikely something similar or even worse could happen in the future. Given that he is now convicted himself and given the presidential election in a few months and all the way some of his supporters behave.