Babbitt shooter speaks, cleared.

Post Reply New Topic

This shows an incredble lack of understanding, or insight, considering in 2016:

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/02/for-many-voters-its-not-which-presidential-candidate-theyre-for-but-which-theyre-against/

Even if the numbers dropped to the same ratio as 2008, that would still leave at least 25% of Mr Trump's votes which came from people who voted against Mr Biden in the 2020 election, not for Mr Trump.



You left out the people who voted for the party, not caring about policies (hyperpartisans - The type of person who has a pavlovian reponce to infer only negative motives to those on the "other side"), those voting against the other side (rather than for this side), those who vote based on single policies which have great meaning\value to them and who don't care about other policy areas, those who had seen improvements in their personal situation over the past few years, and voted for the incumbent to keep those improvements going, etc.

The fact you only see people as being either 100% for, or 100% against demonstrates both a high level of hyperpartisanship, along with a low level of understanding on the subject. After all, there were many reports of people saying they were voting "Against Mr Trump" in the recent election - why would they do (or claim to being intending to do) this, if under your "logic" they wouldn't have voted at all and simply abstained? Or, is it that those on one side are pemitted to place a vote if it is because it it "against" the opponent, whereas you expect those on the other side to "abstain" if their reason for voting is "against" your preferred side?


How about the politically alienated, who despise both parties?

You are merely letting your hyperpartisan world view colour the fact that there is not enough information to determine the reason for the bomber's actions - certainly not in the photographs or article used to "justify" the claim.

At this point, you have not demonstrated anything which could objectively (or to an unbiased observer) support your claim that the person was "MAGA" - You have, however, demonstrated a high degree of vitriol towards those who don't hold to your political views, but sadly that was not unexpected.

Hyperpartisans are a curious beast, especially those on the spectrum.
Oh, wait.



While there is no way of knowing, at this stage, there is always the possibility that the pipe-bombs were a "False Flag" operation.
Them being ineffective may add to this possibility since there would be more people prepared to plant a dud bomb than those who would want actual harm being done.



Since we don't know the facts, we are left with possibilities and probabilities.
Not understanding this shows a limited intellectual capacity or total hyperpartisan allegiance, does it not?

Pepe puts his paw in the air.

But I hasten to add, I am a pacifist, through and through, so it wasn't me.

You have more patience than I, my Victorian fiend friend.
Where do you get the mental energy?



Well, as I said earlier, it is possible it *was* a Maggot Maga, but there is no way of knowing for sure, at this stage.
Anyone with an ounce of reasoning ability would have to acknowledge this, surely.



But there never has been a case where a progressive engaged in a false flag operation.
Oh, wait.


https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/1 ... iot-459553

Oh, I see.
I think this is called a "Gotcha moment".

I think the person needs to put more effort into their research.

I thought I answered them pretty much with my two answers.

Well, I seemed to have missed that.
Skunks, while very handsome, are not perfect.

So, one more time for this dummy skunk, do you agree with the facts, as I see them, here?:

I question the notion that most died from natural causes. The police officers who died would not have if there was no riot - of that I'm completely sure. Officer Fanone, who had survived a heart attack while attacked with attempt by rioters to kill on the 6th made it abundantly clear that it was the rioters who had caused his near death experience.

Seems I missed an earlier post, and I don't want you to think I ignored it. Otherwise, I agree with what you stated earlier, that maybe we need a break from each other.

FYI when I said "I think others have the same issue" it came specifically from the back and forth I'm seeing in this thread, that I've sat on my hands trying not to interfere with.

Also, I don't think you should be speculating or asking about private messages. But maybe this will help you out: I don't consider it appropriate to engage in conversations behind the scenes about other members unless it is to figure out how to improve this communities support for them. Despite my attraction to the occasional contentious news debate, I see the site first and foremost as a support community. Behind the scenes gossip isn't a part of that and I do not engage in it. A few times over the years I've received private messages of support from someone for any of a number of reasons, and I accept that for what it is: one private message of support. They get a "thank you for caring about me" type of message back, and that is it.



Not to me. Most emojis can be taken in a variety of ways, and some I've simply never understood at all. I tend to find them annoying.



Yes. I do my best, but no one is perfect, and it gets especially difficult on this site because there are multiple variations of unique communication needs. Trying to meet that challenge was very helpful in teaching me how to understand and interact with my son.



I do tend to lean left, but I'm not aligned with any other members, so why would a communication with me turn into a pile on? I jumped on this board when I saw Dox had been posting, because I hadn't gone back and forth with him in years, and I like the banter. There are a few super long-term members I have nothing in common with but really enjoy running into when I visit exactly because they are so different than me. I have no idea if that goes both ways. I'm not on here often enough anymore to sustain relationships of any type, but I still have warm feelings for the site and its members leftover from my more active years.

Well vitriol is the path to the darkside so I'll try my best to temper my adjectives/sideswipes.

Yes my argument wouldn't probably stand in a court of law right now (which is where you are heading with your jumping up and down) but I surmised based on the capitol officers comments that it would be reasonable to assume that this man has (at the very least) sympathies with Trump's "MAGA's greatest tunes:" where voter fraud comes close to being in the top 5 stupidest things Trump's claimed which was (and you can't dispute this) the biggest factor in the Capitol riots.

But, yes, he could be a lone wolf operating under some other agenda, A big relief to the pro-Trump camp is his apparent successful vanishing act which despite the reward for his capture he remains at large.

I can't stop being amused by how anxious the pro-Trump people are in claiming there is "nothing to see" regarding the :"vitriol" from the rioters. There are some gaping holes that still need to fill and I trust the FBI will do their job in uncovering the criminal pro-Trump organisers of the Jan 6 riots. Whoever they are.

Possibly it's just how I look at (and have experienced) things, but I find that if a person is unable to correctly\accurately\honestly represent details they are presenting in support of their claims, it generally doesn't bode well for their underlying claim either.

But as I noted, that's just my views\experience and others may see\have seen things differently.

The conservative leadership started following the scent in the winds, trying not to alienate voters they will need in primaries.

While a lot of "average" people, including conservatives, were shocked by what happened at the capital, many others sympathized with the sentiments of the crowd enough to forgive some of the more "enthusiastic" moments. I saw the split in my small little personal social media circle almost right away.

The ramifications are likely to be quite serious. It makes me very uneasy about our future.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 30 Aug 2021, 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

As the FBI have already announced they don't believe there was any big "conspiracy" here, I doubt there'll be many "organisers" to track down... Considering how long it is since the events, they likely have them all arrested.

Given this, it looks like the intent (of some, if not most) may have simply been along the lines of what occurred during the Kavanaugh hearings and confimation vote, where those opposed to what was occurring wanted to show their opposition in a similar manner.

Of course, we'll probably have to wait until the footage from inside the building is released to be able to better determine what portion of those who entered the building seemed intent on causing damage\injury to property\others there, and what portion were merely "sightseeing"\taking "selfies".

Ehh, a lot of us that had been paying attention were all over the double standard in the coverage pretty much instantly, regardless of any sympathy for the rioters. The instantaneous creation of the insurrection narrative after being gaslit all year by the media regarding the racial justice protests was just too much, I don't think I've been that angry in a long time.

That could be the reasoning for the split I saw. I'll leave it at that. You and I both already know I'm not on the same page.

There's actually a huge difference between people getting out of hand in regard to the just cause racial justice, and the Capitol rioters whose number included white nationalists, anti-vaxxers, religious nuts, and loads of other members of the lunatic fringe. Go ahead and hurl your rage at me, I know I'm right (and no, I'm not defending those racial justice demonstrations that turned violent).
As for gaslighting, nobody did that better than your orange messiah (as I recall, you had threatened to vote for him so us liberals would be punished, so you can own him).