Trump Says Jan. 6 Was an Insurrection
rollingstone.com
Trump’s legal team also tried to throw cold water on the idea in a filing earlier this week, writing that the “events of January 6 were not an ‘insurrection’ as they did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. government.”
Trump disagrees, apparently.
“They kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection,” he said outside Mar-a-Lago after arguments concluded in Washington, D.C. “I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.
You are viewing a single comment
Political nihilism doesn’t grant you a clear conscience.
Maybe not for you. But it's the best option I can see. And with the electoral college making the real decision, individual votes don't really matter, especially in my state.
If you want to throw your vote away, that’s fine. If that helps you sleep at night, fair enough. But going around telling people not to vote for Biden is essentially the same thing as telling people to vote for trump. I understand you wish that weren’t the case, you wish a 3rd party was a viable option, but that simply is not realistic for this upcoming election.
There are a lot of us out here who fear trump more than we dislike Biden… and if you think they are the same then you can’t see the forest through the trees.
"Hey, you should maybe vote for someone who isn't actively financially supporting the most well-documented genocide in human history."
"Hey, this guy wants us to vote for Trump!"
I mean, yeah, he's technically less culpable than Biden, but that's just because he's not currently in the White House. We all know he would be just as bad as Biden in that particular regard.
If telling you to vote with your conscience rather than your fear is the same as telling you to vote for Trump, maybe you're the real Trump supporter.
That’s a clever way to continue to dodge the questions.
Do you agree that it will be one or the other?
Do you agree that one is worse than the other?
Do you agree that telling people to not vote for one is the same as shilling for the other?
These are easy questions and you are dodging them.
Hey, don't blame me if you can't understand subtext. I answered all your less-than-inane questions already, just not directly. But fine, here you go:
Sadly, most likely, yes.
If I wanted a candidate who's a zero, then they're 10 and -10. Either way, things will get worse for everyone, just in a different order.
No, and the fact that so many people think that is a big part of the problem.
Let’s just take the first and third questions to start.
You answered question 1 with yes, which is, to the dismay of us both, the correct answer, congratulations.
Given the context of your correct answer to 1, your answer to question 3 is irrational.
Let’s say you are at a grocery store and they offer you paper or plastic bags. Let’s say you have too many things to carry and you forgot your reusable bag at home. You have two choices, paper or plastic, and no other choices. If you are absolutely going to leave the store with one of those two choices, and I tell you not to take plastic, then I am at the same time telling you to take paper. This is the law of the excluded middle.
Now if you reply to my example with a ‘well I just won’t go to the store’, or ‘that’s a false dichotomy’ then re read the example again a few more times and see your answer to question 1.
On to question two.
I read your response to question two at least 5 times and I still can’t find the words yes OR no. If you think both choices are equally bad, you would answer no. If you think one is worse than the other, you would answer yes. Easy peasy. Instead, you responded with incoherent nonsense… negative ten and positive ten equals zero, things will get worse in a different order… what the hell are you talking about? The question is a very simple yes or no question. You can’t even get this one wrong so long as you answer with yes or no, I am asking your opinion.
If you think they are equally bad, we can discuss that, but you didn’t choose an answer here. No need for subtext, just yes or no will do nicely.
Despite your embracing the roll of a dishonest interlocutor, you made some progress here by, reluctantly, answering question one with a straight answer.
So if you share in my goal of holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, would you like to take another shot at question two, and then show your work for your answer to question 3?
Dishonest, am I? I've answered each of your insultingly inane questions as honestly as I can. My answers just aren't as binary as you were hoping.
In your grocery store analogy, telling me not to choose plastic may be the same as telling me to choose paper from your perspective, but that ignores the option of choosing neither and taking my items out in the cart to load them into my car without bags.
You go on to say I should answer yes or no to whether I believe one candidate is worse than the other, but those aren't the only options. If you insist I use one of those specific words in my answer, then my answer is yes and no. They're wildly different, but either will likely pull us into World War III. One is more likely to have an immediately harmful effect on a marginalized class, while the other is more likely to have an immediately harmful effect on a different (but not mutually exclusive) marginalized class. There's no lesser between these two evils; they're just evil in different ways.