Trump Consciousness

Thank you. It's helpful to know what you're talking about.

I took the time to look at almost all of those examples in context to see whether or not there were any examples of Dems encouraging violence or criminal activity in general or among BLM protests specifically. It's clear that you did not do so, nor did the people writing those articles. Or they did, and then lied about what they saw.

Almost all of the speeches, specifically referred to lawful activities. Nobody listening to the speeches (rather than deceptively edited snippets) would have taken away the message that they should engage in violent or criminal activities. Hilary Clinton's reference to "strength" turned out to be a specific reference to "voting Democrats into office". Cory Booker's "get in their face" turned out to be a specific reference to getting into representatives' faces to tell them about areas of need in the communities, to see those in need as people, and to love them as fellow Americans. Ayanna Pressley's "unrest" turned out to be "make the calls, send the emails, show up [to protests]" and a "public outcry". Castro's "fight" comment specified challenging Trump in Congress, in the courts, and in protests. AOC comments were part of a history lesson. Kamala Harris specifically referenced peaceful protests going back to the 60's to the present.

The most egregious example was the claim that Nicole Hannah-Jones expressed support for violence on the part of protesters. What she actually supported was the idea of allowing violence against protesters. "Peaceful protest did not bring about the great civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Black people being firebombed, water-hosed, lynched, bitten by dogs, beaten to a pulp by police trying to march across a bridge is what brought the changes. Violence."

I talked about Pelosi and Testor's punch in the face comment earlier.

So what we are left with is Cynthia Jone's facebook stream in response to phone calls she received saying things like "I hope you are dead by now...You are a piece of s**t. You need to be run out of office and hung from a f**king tree you dumb n****r b**ch." Now, I agree that she went over the line. She was remarkably restrained, in that context. But she is a politician and is held to different standards with respect to her speech. And even though she started out her stream with thanks to her supporters and that the path to take was one that was civil and lawful - the FBI and state police had already found one of the people who had left her those kinds of messages (that was what the "tread lightly" statement referred to). But she ended with that weird statement about soldiers which negated the rest. I don't know what she was trying to say, but you could certainly argue it wasn't protected speech, if someone in her audience took that as a call for violence.

If this is what the claims of "Dems inciting violence" is about, then your case is pathetic. None of those examples, not even the Cynthia Johnson example, even remotely rise to the level of what Trump did. And the senate trial agrees with that. Impeachment votes have always followed strictly party lines. Romney's vote at Trump's last impeachment was the first time ever that a senator crossed party lines on a guilty vote. And yesterday seven senators did so. This was a case so strong that it overcame a substantial number of senators' reluctance to put country before party - do you know how hard it is to do that?
 
Last edited:
Thank you. It's helpful to know what you're talking about.

I took the time to look at almost all of those examples in context to see whether or not there were any examples of Dems encouraging violence or criminal activity in general or among BLM protests specifically. It's clear that you did not do so, nor did the people writing those articles. Or they did, and then lied about what they saw.

Almost all of the speeches, specifically referred to lawful activities. Nobody listening to the speeches (rather than deceptively edited snippets) would have taken away the message that they should engage in violent or criminal activities. Hilary Clinton's reference to "strength" turned out to be a specific reference to "voting Democrats into office". Cory Booker's "get in their face" turned out to be a specific reference to getting into representatives' faces to tell them about areas of need in the communities, to see those in need as people, and to love them as fellow Americans. Ayanna Pressley's "unrest" turned out to be "make the calls, send the emails, show up [to protests]" and a "public outcry". Castro's "fight" comment specified challenging Trump in Congress, in the courts, and in protests. AOC comments were part of a history lesson. Kamala Harris specifically referenced peaceful protests going back to the 60's to the present.

The most egregious example was the claim that Nicole Hannah-Jones expressed support for violence on the part of protesters. What she actually supported was the idea of allowing violence against protesters. "Peaceful protest did not bring about the great civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Black people being firebombed, water-hosed, lynched, bitten by dogs, beaten to a pulp by police trying to march across a bridge is what brought the changes. Violence."

I talked about Pelosi and Testor's punch in the face comment earlier.

So what we are left with is Cynthia Jone's facebook stream in response to phone calls she received saying things like "I hope you are dead by now...You are a piece of s**t. You need to be run out of office and hung from a f**king tree you dumb n****r b**ch." Now, I agree that she went over the line. She was remarkably restrained, in that context. But she is a politician and is held to different standards with respect to her speech. And even though she started out her stream with thanks to her supporters and that the path to take was one that was civil and lawful - the FBI and state police had already found one of the people who had left her those kinds of messages (that was what the "tread lightly" statement referred to). But she ended with that weird statement about soldiers which negated the rest. I don't know what she was trying to say, but you could certainly argue it wasn't protected speech, if someone in her audience took that as a call for violence.

If this is what the claims of "Dems inciting violence" is about, then your case is pathetic. None of those examples, not even the Cynthia Johnson example, even remotely rise to the level of what Trump did. And the senate trial agrees with that. Impeachment votes have always followed strictly party lines. Romney's vote at Trump's last impeachment was the first time ever that a senator crossed party lines on a guilty vote. And yesterday seven senators did so. This was a case so strong that it overcame a substantial number of senators' reluctance to put country before party - do you know how hard it is to do that?
You are such a hypocrite! "Rules for thee and not for me" seems to be the mantra of the Dems. Trump encouraged his supporters to protest peacefully. He used that very word. Telling people to behave peacefully is not inciting violence.

But it's all protected speech, and Trump won his case.
 
You are such a hypocrite! "Rules for thee and not for me" seems to be the mantra of the Dems. Trump encouraged his supporters to protest peacefully. He used that very word. Telling people to behave peacefully is not inciting violence.
Saying the word "peacefully" once, does not get you off the hook. Nor does it tell you what the audience is likely to take away from the speech. Look at what I said about Cynthia Johnson's video for an example. Or look at the Proud Boys' reaction to Trump's statement during the first debate.

Trump was always going to win the senate vote. Nobody from his party was actually going to look at the evidence - this is never about trying to be an impartial juror. Except, something unexpected happened. Seven senators realized the the case was so strong, it would be wrong for them to deny it. That's pretty amazing.
 
Democrats really don't care about the truth at all. They got caught faking evidence at the impeachment trial and had to withdraw it.
Except, of course, that what they said was true, and the events happened as they outlined. When they said "and on that call, Donald Trump reportedly asked Sen. Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification process", Lee thought they were talking about a report from him. But they weren't and they didn't claim that they were. The published news reports which made the claim cited an anonymous source.

However, rather than argue the point, the Dems withdrew it so they could move on, because it wasn't that important to their case. But not because it wasn't true.
 
Last edited:
Saying the word "peacefully" once, does not get you off the hook. Nor does it tell you what the audience is likely to take away from the speech. Look at what I said about Cynthia Johnson's video for an example. Or look at the Proud Boys' reaction to Trump's statement during the first debate.

Trump was always going to win the senate vote. Nobody from his party was actually going to look at the evidence - this is never about trying to be an impartial juror. Except, something unexpected happened. Seven senators realized the the case was so strong, it would be wrong for them to deny it. That's pretty amazing.
You must be really pretty.

 
Robert Barnes goes over the doctored evidence that the dems tried to get away with starting at 1:02:00 min.
I'm not really trusting these guys. They clearly just half-ass any due diligence for these videos. Neither of them bothered to check on what the Dems actually claimed Lee said, and what they claimed someone else said, for example.
 
You are such a liar. They did their fact checking. Viva is particularly diligent, and posts corrections if new information comes to light. Send him your "evidence" if you think what they said was flawed. See if you can get them to post a correction.

The Dems didn't even defend themselves because they were caught red handed.
He can't have done any fact-checking, because it has already been done for him, yet he didn't use it.

https://apnews.com/article/mike-lee-trump-misdialed-fact-check-3165726e16c990596218f61a88205304

Since when does correcting someone who is highly motivated to present a specific perspective, irrespective of the evidence, ever work?

The Dems specifically stated they would withdraw the statement without prejudice so they could bring it up again, if it became important to their case. That's the opposite of thinking you've been caught red-handed. That tells everyone you think the statement would stand up as true/correct.
 
Since when does correcting someone who is highly motivated to present a specific perspective, irrespective of the evidence, ever work?
Yeah, I should just leave you to your fantasies.

BTW, I'm not a supporter of the Republicans. Trump was the most Liberal (liberal in the classical sense) president the US has had in a very long time, and his presidency has exposed the corruption of what is really a one party system masquerading as two.
 
Lee himself stood up and said the Dems were attributing statements to him that were "contrary to fact". See for yourself.
Yes, that's the moment I talked about earlier, and the moment which is specifically covered in the fact check. Lee misunderstood. He was objecting to something that didn't actually happen. He thought they attributed a statement to him (the one about what was reportedly said on the call). But that statement actually referred to somebody else - an anonymous source who was quoted in published news reports last month. The statements that the Dems attributed to Lee were statements that Lee does not dispute, and which had already been published (also last month).
 
Yes, that's the moment I talked about earlier, and the moment which is specifically covered in the fact check. Lee misunderstood. He was objecting to something that didn't actually happen. He thought they attributed a statement to him (the one about what was reportedly said on the call). But that statement actually referred to somebody else - an anonymous source who was quoted in published news reports last month. The statements that the Dems attributed to Lee were statements that Lee does not dispute, and which had already been published (also last month).
He didn't misunderstand. Lee knew that he hadn't made the statements that were attributed to him. Someone should have factchecked the Dems "evidence" for them before they were made to look silly. And that wasn't the only false information put out by the Dems. They doctored tweets, changing the dates and account verification to fit their narrative. They were caught red-handed with the doctored evidence.

Here it is again, since you ignored this the first time. (Plus it's fun to watch.)

 
He didn't misunderstand. Lee knew that he hadn't made the statements that were attributed to him.
And so did the Dems. So they never said that Lee made the statements. He was objecting to something that didn't happen.

Someone should have factchecked the Dems "evidence" for them before they were made to look silly. And that wasn't the only false information put out by the Dems. They doctored tweets, changing the dates and account verification to fit their narrative. They were caught red-handed with the doctored evidence.
They made a couple of trivial errors on their graphics - one was caught before it was presented, so it was accurate during the presentation (a date of Jan. 3 2020 was changed to 2021, which was the accurate date) and one was not (a verification check was added to the graphic of a tweet, but the author of the tweet had not been verified (an official Twitter designation), but she did confirm that she was who she said she was, and that the tweet came from her (which is all that verification means)). Nothing about those utterly trivial errors changed the content or accuracy of the tweets. Although nobody picked up on Calvary/Cavalry. I probably wouldn't, and I'm usually a careful reader. I don't even know what it means to bring the Calvary (bet Trump doesn't, either).

It actually makes the Dems look pretty good, if that's the only thing they gave you to work with. Next you'll be calling them liars for spelling it the "Unites States of America".

Here it is again, since you ignored this the first time. (Plus it's fun to watch.)
That is pretty hilarious. The look on her face, trying to suppress a giant eye-roll. I guarantee you, her assistant doesn't have to worry about her getting angry. They are going to be rolling around on the floor laughing their asses off, once she gets off the air. She was obviously aware that he was throwing a fit about a trivial typo.
 
Last edited:
Top