The Political Impact of Failed Assassination

[Binger]

Hmmmmmm. I wonder where that rhetoric was tested on the public. Hmmm. Let me... nope. Can't think of an example. This is all the way new. Nothign comes to mind. Tin ear brain. There is no way they would do this if had already been done and didn't work.

Don't be coy, Binger. Please, by all means, spell out your claim so we can all hear it. Think of it: there is neither any evidence nor anything to suggest that Biden was responsible for this in any way. If you have an instance in which leading Democrats blamed Trump for something that he was completely unconnected to, I am eager to read it. I would not want to be fair. But I am not going to sit here racking my brains trying to figure out what you may be referring to. I am too tired and have better things to do with my time.

Oh, I already explained this. I can't think of an example. Nothing comes to mind where anyone has been blamed for the actions of another person. I mean, it seems like that would have been tried before rolling it out here, but nope. Can't think of where that has ever happened before.

[Kishkumen]

This is why I'm critical of GOP voters. It's impossible for me to witness anyone claiming support for the GOP without thinking they are ignorant fools. Cultists will cult, I guess.

It is impossible for me to support the GOP, just as it is impossible for some of our friends here to support the DNC. We think our reasons are self-evident. They think their reasons are self-evident. What I notice is that, on certain issues and beliefs, we are not so different. I am not comfortable with my denigration of Trump followers as cult members any longer. I really should not say that. I do not agree with them, but I also don't think that they are blindly following Trump for no reason. Like they haven't thought things through at all, or the are completely blind to his faults. I am not happy, of course, that their calculus had led to supporting Trump, but I do think that they performed their own math here. This is not unthinking support.

In any case, Schmo, thanks for writing what you wrote. You have reminded me that I should not call Trump supporters cultists. I am not criticizing you, but I feel like I really shouldn't do it.

[Kishkumen]

Just think: If Biden really was behind the plot, then he would have immunity because it was done in his official capacity as President.

Something tells me that Biden is not eager to try out that theory. For starters, he has too much decency. He is definitely a flawed person, but I do not believe he is a murderer. Still, it is interesting and sad, at the same time, that this is a thought experiment that seems within the realm of possibility.

[Some Schmo]

In any case, Schmo, thanks for writing what you wrote. You have reminded me that I should not call Trump supporters cultists. I am not criticizing you, but I feel like I really shouldn't do it.

I understand where you're coming from; in the interest of simmering down the division in this country, we don't want to demonize each other.

But I can't help but feel this is a situation where we are tempted to lie to ourselves to attempt harmony. Trump's base is actively ignoring the plans to remake America in a toxic Christian image. They can deny the myriad evidence and chalk it up to irrational fear, but that's like seeing a fire in your kitchen and saying, "Well, it's just a little fire. It won't spread." It's denying common sense.

Essentially, his base has no problem letting the fire spread because for some unknown reason, they only think everyone else will get burnt.

So, I'm not sure how else to describe his base accurately.

[Binger]

Trump's base is actively ignoring the plans to remake America in a toxic Christian image.

Harmeet Dhillon gave a benediciton yesterday. She is one of the most powerful people in the populist movement and in the RNC. She is the base.

If ever you decide to consider actual facts rather than repeat unoriginal lies and prejuduce, that would be American.

[canpakes]

Don't be coy, Binger. Please, by all means, spell out your claim so we can all hear it. Think of it: there is neither any evidence nor anything to suggest that Biden was responsible for this in any way. If you have an instance in which leading Democrats blamed Trump for something that he was completely unconnected to, I am eager to read it. I would not want to be fair. But I am not going to sit here racking my brains trying to figure out what you may be referring to. I am too tired and have better things to do with my time.

Oh, I already explained this. I can't think of an example. Nothing comes to mind where anyone has been blamed for the actions of another person. I mean, it seems like that would have been tried before rolling it out here, but nope. Can't think of where that has ever happened before.

Here’s a great example. A president booted out of office promotes a rally in which he spends well over an hour exhorting his fans to ‘fight like hell’ to ‘take back’ what is supposedly rightfully theirs (victimhood and representation by a rapey fraudster), then he hides out for a few hours while that same crowd descends upon and bursts into the Capitol.



Now you. Talk about how Biden motivated Crooks to do what he did. Talk about the link here created by Biden’s ‘bullseye’ remark, if you’d like.

You don’t strike me as being very willing to do that, because it’ll expose that you can’t commit to either view that there’s a connection between these things, or not. Committing to one or the other would mean that you can’t rely on your dependence on vacillation and equivocation to criticize other viewpoints while taking no stand yourself.

[Binger]

Oh, I already explained this. I can't think of an example. Nothing comes to mind where anyone has been blamed for the actions of another person. I mean, it seems like that would have been tried before rolling it out here, but nope. Can't think of where that has ever happened before.

Here’s a great example. A president booted out of office promotes a rally in which he spends well over an hour exhorting his fans to ‘fight like hell’ to ‘take back’ what is supposedly rightfully theirs (victimhood and representation by a rapey fraudster), then he hides out for a few hours while that same crowd descends upon and bursts into the Capitol.



Now you. Talk about how Biden motivated Crooks to do what he did. Talk about the link here created by Biden’s ‘bullseye’ remark, if you’d like.

You don’t strike me as being very willing to do that, because it’ll expose that you can’t commit to either view that there’s a connection between these things, or not. Committing to one or the other would mean that you can’t rely on your dependence on vacillation and equivocation to criticize other viewpoints while taking no stand yourself.

Oh, so you know what I am willing to do and what I am willing to not do. You are speaking for me? You got it wrong. How about you speak for you and if you make an argument that compels me to respond, I will. If you speak for me, and you are wrong - thanks for the information. By the way, attributing thoughts and language to another poster, particularly when those thoughts and words are not accurate, is a misuse of the trolling/quoting feature.

[canpakes]

Here’s a great example. A president booted out of office promotes a rally in which he spends well over an hour exhorting his fans to ‘fight like hell’ to ‘take back’ what is supposedly rightfully theirs (victimhood and representation by a rapey fraudster), then he hides out for a few hours while that same crowd descends upon and bursts into the Capitol.



Now you. Talk about how Biden motivated Crooks to do what he did. Talk about the link here created by Biden’s ‘bullseye’ remark, if you’d like.

You don’t strike me as being very willing to do that, because it’ll expose that you can’t commit to either view that there’s a connection between these things, or not. Committing to one or the other would mean that you can’t rely on your dependence on vacillation and equivocation to criticize other viewpoints while taking no stand yourself.

Oh, so you know what I am willing to do and what I am willing to not do. You are speaking for me? You got it wrong. How about you speak for you and if you make an argument that compels me to respond, I will. If you speak for me, and you are wrong - thanks for the information. By the way, attributing thoughts and language to another poster, particularly when those thoughts and words are not accurate, is a misuse of the trolling/quoting feature.

You were apparently compelled to respond. Your subsequent vacillation and equivocation is noted. Thanks.

[Binger]

Oh, so you know what I am willing to do and what I am willing to not do. You are speaking for me? You got it wrong. How about you speak for you and if you make an argument that compels me to respond, I will. If you speak for me, and you are wrong - thanks for the information. By the way, attributing thoughts and language to another poster, particularly when those thoughts and words are not accurate, is a misuse of the trolling/quoting feature.

You were apparently compelled to respond. Your subsequent vacillation and equivocation is noted. Thanks.

I was apparently addressing a moderator who was speaking for me and was wrong. There is no vacillation and there is no equivocation. You are welcome to post your own arguments rather than posting mine or posting your judgments. If you make a compelling and interesting argument, I will consider it.

[canpakes]

You were apparently compelled to respond. Your subsequent vacillation and equivocation is noted. Thanks.

I was apparently addressing a moderator who was speaking for me and was wrong. There is no vacillation and there is no equivocation. You are welcome to post your own arguments rather than posting mine or posting your judgments. If you make a compelling and interesting argument, I will consider it.

Excellent. More vacillating and equivocation.