People are asking, "Why did Trump invite people to the Capitol on January 6?
This is hindsight.
If I took you back in time, YOU WOULD'VE SUPPORTED people going to the Capitol on January 6.
I supported them going.
By viewing everything with hindsight, you're STILL letting the press narrative manipulate you.
It's time to DEPROGRAM yourselves.
Here's the reality:
IT WAS A SETUP.
Leftists--including FBI agents--infiltrated the Oath Keepers and whichever other nutcases played soldier that day, so the Democrats knew some half-assed raid was planned.
So the plan was to open the doors HERE and tell the cops to fight THERE, and then paint the whole mess as an insurrection.
Stand-down orders were given, help was delayed, and agent provocateurs whipped up the people not part of the original plan.
I'm sure that reliably messed up people like Buffalo-skin Cap--who still lives with his mommy and has to eat a special diet--were carted in, and the Democrats and press did its thing.
For now, the narrative is set in concrete.
There was no reason TO NOT invite Trump supporters to the Capitol, because with the exception of a few, Trump supporters have no history of violence.
I thought Rufio Pan--White Sleeves--was level headed, but his insane.
His anti-cop rhetoric is the same as Antifa's.
As long as you watch the news, you'll continue to be brainwashed.
And you won't even know it.
Trump is habitually on time. He delayed his speech that day by 45 mins. He was trying to throw off the timing of something by being late.
@A3r0b1rd There is no way Trump knew of the anarchist plans! As CIC he would have a duty to act if he had any knowledge of such a plan or trap!
You wrapped it up the way I have seen it, but succinctly. That is what happened and that is that.
You can add other elements, like the open door trap, lack of NG, etc. It's all there. It was a plan that included the 2nd impeachment, but mostly, the heated need to certify the false election. All My Opinion. Thanks TW.
I still have people that send me Scott Adam's hot take on stuff after he accused Tracy Beanz of being neck-deep in Q-stuff and involved in the Capitol riot.
What a joke. **I** was there, she *wasn't*.
She covered Q a bit back in 2017, then dropped it.
But people still let sources like this influence them even though they get basic facts wrong.
@StevenDouglas He has never sat right with my BS detector....
Trust your gut.
I always knew that Scott Adams wanted to be President. He used to block people for "reading his mind" to that effect. Now he's coming right out and saying it.
Almost everything Scott Adams says is "just a little bit wrong", as he likes to say.
He earned a lot of trust/respect for his opinions and slowly destroyed it as he went from Mr. Debunking the Charlottesville Hoax to Impeach the President for the Insurrection because of what he didn't say.
MANY times he's floated the, "That's it. He's no longer fit to be President" balloon (usually over some lack of action Scott deemed a deal breaker if not taken).
Then he destroys Biden to show that he's fair and balanced, just calling balls and strikes as he sees them.
@StevenDouglas I hate the term grifter. It's been played out. He may actually be one. His expertise is influence after all.
Some of his tics are silly. He says that sort of thing and we know he's being disingenuous, he admits to using hyperbole in those cases to emphasise a point.
I suppose it's meant to be disarming to show a couple of your simple tricks...
I find him interesting as part of a balanced diet, but for a clear-eyed critic of the media, he certainly swallowed the premise of the Capitol insurrection, before apparently walking it back.
@StevenDouglas @Zentrification @Canadian4Trump My undergrad friends have been asking me to condemn Cruz and Holley for protesting vote count. I ask them, "what if they are right? I will criticize if fraud is proven to be a hoax. Prior to that, I have to wait". They cannot understand this. They keep sending me MSM articles on fraud. I sent them a couple on Capitol Riots and how they were in planning before T spoke. Crickets so far...😎
@Zentrification @StevenDouglas @Canadian4Trump I used to listen to Scott almost everyday. I couldn't get the good cop, bad cop set up. If you are an "media analyst", then analyze. If it is pro T, ok. If it is anti T, ok. There is something wrong about analyzing media without doing independent source research anyway; because you have to work hard at not being misled and not misleading. I think @ThomasWic said it more eloquently. My first instinct is to not believe unless I read source...
Go for it! That's the beauty of this place; exchange of ideas and information.
FYI: I bought the ingredients (or what I didn't have already) to make your cake later this week at some point. Might dribble some Peanut Butter on it; still will decide on using coffee as a substitute (not a coffee drinker myself, but I don't mind eating Tiramus).
Thank you so much.
He's one of those guys I left behind in 2020. Shit-awful pro-lockdown garbage.
I think that he has, like mucho f his age group, an innate trust in authority and could not fathom the "experts" being bought off, power-hungry, lying to us.
Scott is a smart guy, but Scott is for Scott. No moral backbone. Always stops short of what needs to be said.
On top of that, his disconnect from God makes him prone to some awful, technocratic opinions. Those Silicon Valley solutions with nary a shred of humanity involved.
Sometimes he has those weird software engineer political takes, treating humans as a problem to be solved. I find those absolutely repellent.
Underneath all this is a frightened man, fearing his advancing age and impending demise.
he's like Cernovich: an insightful guy despite everything, but he uses his influence to play mind games with his viewers instead of actually participate.
They build a great deal of trust in their audience...and for what? To emotionally manipulate people like an abusive spouse?
If he says it and does not mean it, and then he is simply trying to deflect criticism. Whatever. I think he’s an interesting guy. Sometimes I read his commentary on persuasion. I don’t watch his podcasts or whatever they are because I just don’t have time for that.
@drawandstrike @StevenDouglas @ThomasWic
Steve, it was easy to be seduced by the Q stuff. It was everywhere. Even an American Thinker article some time back had me thinking that there was something to it. So I tried researching it, checked a few links, but something did not seem right so I basically stopped looking and decided to keep an eye on it from a distance.
I was repelled by Q on general principle. Too nebulous, intentionally cryptic and mysterious, geared for itchy ears.
Everything Q read like Sunday horoscopes to me.
"Yes! See the Virgo entry? That's ME TO A TEE! I'm now going to be on the lookout for someone offering me an opportunity this week. Because this one could be a LIFE CHANGING DOOR OPENER!"
Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.