The 1/6 Committee Hearings

ml1 said:

nohero said:

Catching up with what the Committee was showing today.  The people who Trump fleeced won't believe this, of course. 

it's shocking to think Trump might have been running a con.

At this point, I'd like to thank jamie for his service in providing us email after email of evidence that the Trump campaign was grifting millions from his followers before he snuck out the door with all the cash.


ml1 said:

it's shocking to think Trump might have been running a con.

This time, they have the receipts. 


They are doing a great job in laying out the grift and deception.

The question is - how will he be held accountable for his actions?  Seems to me that some donors should get a refund!

Even this morning - his grift email was for a donation to be not just a MAGA member - but a ULTRA MAGA member!

And:

YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY REACHED

GREAT MAGA KING STATUS.


You’ve always been one of my STRONGEST supporters, so I am honored to inform you that you have reached Great MAGA King Status. Only my TOP patriots qualify for this status, and YOU have earned it, Friend.

------------------------------------



jamie said:

They are doing a great job in laying out the grift and deception.

The question is - how will he be held accountable for his actions?  Seems to me that some donors should get a refund!

Even this morning - his grift email was for a donation to be not just a MAGA member - but a ULTRA MAGA member!

And:

YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY REACHED

GREAT MAGA KING STATUS.


You’ve always been one of my STRONGEST supporters, so I am honored to inform you that you have reached Great MAGA King Status. Only my TOP patriots qualify for this status, and YOU have earned it, Friend.

------------------------------------

as it says in Ecclesiastes 3, there's a sucker born every minute.


Didn't hear today's whole presentation.  Did the committee also point out that he was flogging the idea of fraud well before the election?


ml1 said:

as it says in Ecclesiastes 3, there's a sucker born every minute.

can't help but think that the rate is quite a bit higher than that.


mjc said:

Didn't hear today's whole presentation.  Did the committee also point out that he was flogging the idea of fraud well before the election?

Yes. They could have hit that point harder, but really they were pushing the point that people came to DC on J6 because Trump conned them into going.


with respect to the regular people who participated in the insurrection, it's not an unreasonable reaction to what they were indoctrinated to believe. If any of us had been 100% convinced that Trump had stolen the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, would it have been a reasonable reaction to support armed insurrection to stop what we believed was a coup?


ml1 said:

with respect to the regular people who participated in the insurrection, it's not an unreasonable reaction to what they were indoctrinated to believe. If any of us had been 100% convinced that Trump had stolen the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, would it have been a reasonable reaction to support armed insurrection to stop what we believed was a coup?

nah. we sorta went through that in 2000 and there wasn't much reaction. And in that case they actually did steal it.


ml1 said:

with respect to the regular people who participated in the insurrection, it's not an unreasonable reaction to what they were indoctrinated to believe. If any of us had been 100% convinced that Trump had stolen the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, would it have been a reasonable reaction to support armed insurrection to stop what we believed was a coup?

I think people have agency, and part of agency means responsibility. To say they were "indoctrinated" makes them out to be too passive -- it's not like accurate information was unavailable or hidden. I'm sure many of those who participated sincerely believed, but that belief itself was a choice on their part.


PVW said:

ml1 said:

with respect to the regular people who participated in the insurrection, it's not an unreasonable reaction to what they were indoctrinated to believe. If any of us had been 100% convinced that Trump had stolen the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, would it have been a reasonable reaction to support armed insurrection to stop what we believed was a coup?

I think people have agency, and part of agency means responsibility. To say they were "indoctrinated" makes them out to be too passive -- it's not like accurate information was unavailable or hidden. I'm sure many of those who participated sincerely believed, but that belief itself was a choice on their part.

I'm not suggesting they were passive. I'm suggesting there was nothing crazy or insane in their response. Taking up arms against a coup, if that's what one believes, is reasonable and rational.


drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

with respect to the regular people who participated in the insurrection, it's not an unreasonable reaction to what they were indoctrinated to believe. If any of us had been 100% convinced that Trump had stolen the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, would it have been a reasonable reaction to support armed insurrection to stop what we believed was a coup?

nah. we sorta went through that in 2000 and there wasn't much reaction. And in that case they actually did steal it.

but would it have been reasonable for "the left" to have taken to the streets and rioted in 2001? In retrospect, the answer may not just be that it would have been reasonable, but that it probably should have been necessary.


To take up arms is a serious choice, and it is precisely when one is contemplating doing so that one ought to really make sure one understands the situation. IMO, many of those who invaded the capitol did so frivolously, irrationally and unreasonably seeking to live out a fantasy where they could be heroes.

I don't want to say there's nothing relatable or worth sympathizing or empathizing with here. Many of these people were acting out a fantasy of empowerment because they felt unempowered, and I'm not seeking to make fun of that. And so sure, it makes perfect emotional sense to act as they did. But that's not the same as saying it was reasonable and rational.

It does raise the broader trouble question of what is going on in this country that has made so many so angry and frightened that they choose these absurd fantasies. I don't know the answer to that, much less what a solution would be. But whatever their reason, choose they did.


PVW said:

To take up arms is a serious choice, and it is precisely when one is contemplating doing so that one ought to really make sure one understands the situation. IMO, many of those who invaded the capitol did so frivolously, irrationally and unreasonably seeking to live out a fantasy where they could be heroes.

I don't want to say there's nothing relatable or worth sympathizing or empathizing with here. Many of these people were acting out a fantasy of empowerment because they felt unempowered, and I'm not seeking to make fun of that. And so sure, it makes perfect emotional sense to act as they did. But that's not the same as saying it was reasonable and rational.

It does raise the broader trouble question of what is going on in this country that has made so many so angry and frightened that they choose these absurd fantasies. I don't know the answer to that, much less what a solution would be. But whatever their reason, choose they did.

I don't believe many of the Jan 6 insurrectionists did so frivolously. They seemed like true believers, according to news reports that followed. So your question of why they chose (or were persuaded) to believe the lies is relevant and important.


I look at, for instance, gun culture, and I see a lot of immaturity and unseriousness. The weapons are real. The people wielding them are fools.


To expand just a bit -- I really got sick of seeing the gap between what people say and what people do in the conservative part of the country I grew up in. Men who talk about bravery and duty and honor and act like scared and credulous kids, thinking a machine they bought that can wield death makes up for their own inability to take themselves and the world they live in seriously. Some days I feel sympathetic. Other days I feel angry.


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

hard to believe, yet not so much.

Later in the hour on Hannity:

I'm pretty sure you can figure out the difference between the two images and why they're different.

Showing her from the back is a very conscious, and pretty odd, decision. The only thing in some doubt is what hogwash idea  was in the producer's head when they decided on that view.


drummerboy said:

I'm pretty sure you can figure out the difference between the two images and why they're different.

Showing her from the back is a very conscious, and pretty odd, decision. The only thing in some doubt is what hogwash idea  was in the producer's head when they decided on that view.

I thought the more relevant part of the image was the claim of a "partisan sham."


ml1 said:

I don't believe many of the Jan 6 insurrectionists did so frivolously. They seemed like true believers, according to news reports that followed. So your question of why they chose (or were persuaded) to believe the lies is relevant and important.

not quite sure what you're getting at with these posts. Are you saying that taking up arms like that is sometimes justified? Of course. But if you're saying that Jan 6 was justified because the rioters actually believed their nonsense in good faith I'd have to say no, they're not.

Doesn't the reason for violence have to be somewhat aligned with reality in order for you, me or history to decide it's justified?

Or is justification not the point here?

Earlier on you said they weren't "crazy" to riot. OK. Maybe not. But I think they were crazy to believe in whatever it was they thought was true and drove them to riot.

At some point crazy comes into the equation. A lot of those folks are clearly not well.

(I'm using "crazy" advisedly here, partly because you used it. I might have picked "deluded" instead.)


drummerboy said:

not quite sure what you're getting at with these posts. Are you saying that taking up arms like that is sometimes justified? Of course. But if you're saying that Jan 6 was justified because the rioters actually believed their nonsense in good faith I'd have to say no, they're not.

Doesn't the reason for violence have to be somewhat aligned with reality in order for you, me or history to decide it's justified?

Or is justification not the point here?

Earlier on you said they weren't "crazy" to riot. OK. Maybe not. But I think they were crazy to believe in whatever it was they thought was true and drove them to riot.

At some point crazy comes into the equation. A lot of those folks are clearly not well.

(I'm using "crazy" advisedly here, partly because you used it. I might have picked "deluded" instead.)

It points to a much, much deeper problem we have in this country with misinformation and propaganda. We can write the Jan 6 people off as deluded. But they aren't alone, and they won't be the last. 

I have no idea what the solution is. But writing the insurrectionists off as deluded or crazy is kind of missing the bigger and more dangerous point IMHO. 


ml1 said:

It points to a much, much deeper problem we have in this country with misinformation and propaganda. We can write the Jan 6 people off as deluded. But they aren't alone, and they won't be the last. 

I have no idea what the solution is. But writing the insurrectionists off as deluded or crazy is kind of missing the bigger and more dangerous point IMHO. 

If you're saying something is seriously wrong in the country, and that is driving people to embrace fantasies that increasingly tip over into real life violence, I agree. There's a need for both an immediate response to the violence, but also a need to grapple with where this violence -- and the fantasies behind it -- are coming from.

I guess I would say that I both believe the insurrectionists are deluded, and are choosing to be deluded, AND that the fact that so many people choose to be deluded indicates a deeper problem.


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

not quite sure what you're getting at with these posts. Are you saying that taking up arms like that is sometimes justified? Of course. But if you're saying that Jan 6 was justified because the rioters actually believed their nonsense in good faith I'd have to say no, they're not.

Doesn't the reason for violence have to be somewhat aligned with reality in order for you, me or history to decide it's justified?

Or is justification not the point here?

Earlier on you said they weren't "crazy" to riot. OK. Maybe not. But I think they were crazy to believe in whatever it was they thought was true and drove them to riot.

At some point crazy comes into the equation. A lot of those folks are clearly not well.

(I'm using "crazy" advisedly here, partly because you used it. I might have picked "deluded" instead.)

It points to a much, much deeper problem we have in this country with misinformation and propaganda. We can write the Jan 6 people off as deluded. But they aren't alone, and they won't be the last. 

I have no idea what the solution is. But writing the insurrectionists off as deluded or crazy is kind of missing the bigger and more dangerous point IMHO. 

I don't think I'm missing the bigger picture here. I'm not writing them off as merely deluded and I've been warning that one of Trump's biggest threats to us would be how he accelerated disinformation. Been saying that since before he got elected, I think. Or soon after anyway.

And I don't have a solution either, though nuking FoxNews would be a good start.


drummerboy said:

I'm pretty sure you can figure out the difference between the two images and why they're different.

I can. I posted the image in case the tweet implied to others, as it did to me before I checked, that Fox News “only showed” the back of Officer Caroline Edwards.


Good summary - 


"I was drinking Diet Pepsi" is the new "I was just tucking in my shirt". 


Gross. Who makes a Rum and Coke with Diet Pepsi?


ml1 said:

but would it have been reasonable for "the left" to have taken to the streets and rioted in 2001? In retrospect, the answer may not just be that it would have been reasonable, but that it probably should have been necessary.

I do worry about future elections, and what will and should happen if a state legislature or secretary of state simply straightforwardly overturns an election.


ml1 said:

with respect to the regular people who participated in the insurrection, it's not an unreasonable reaction to what they were indoctrinated to believe. If any of us had been 100% convinced that Trump had stolen the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, would it have been a reasonable reaction to support armed insurrection to stop what we believed was a coup?

I've been catching up on this thread and this struck me. I can't imagine Dems supporting an armed insurrection. I really can't and I'm someone who fantasize about what I would do in this or that situation. I'm very brave in my fantasy world but in real life if you put a gun in front of me I'd freeze. I can't imagine a single person that I know doing more than marching and carrying signs. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals