This is not a defense of the January 6th rioters nor Trump’s plan to pardon them , but it perhaps may explain the attitude. Ben Shapiro points out (correctly) of the Dems using “LAWFARE” to punish political enemies and being selective in their outrage. Many on the right feel that the all the destruction and chaos from BLM & ANTIFA thugs went unpunished by the liberal progressive Dems because they were sympathetic to the cause. Shapiro says the attitude that would normally deter people from letting their own tribe members off the hook no longer applies after the Dems’ behavior during those “mostly peaceful protests.” Hence the current attitude of many in the right wing tribe is that “well we already saw how the Dems got away (with the aid of their. Liberal media allies) with their decision to let THEIR hooligans off the hook and cover for their chaos, so why should we on the right obey the law since our political enemies refuse to do it?”
What Ben's engaging in is whataboutism, which he used to reject.
A few things:
Hundreds of "BLM & ANTIFA thugs" were in fact prosecuted, convicted, and served time over the 2020 riots. It just happened at the state level, because most of the crimes weren't on federal property. This has gone under-reported by the left-wing media (because lots on that side ideologically aligned with the BLM cause) and also under-reported by the right-wing media (to bolster the bias-confirming narrative that those individuals got off scot-free).
The New York case was unquestionably "lawfare" (as Bernie and I have written and talked about many times), though Trump clearly did what he was charged with. The Jack Smith indictments were serious and appropriate, as was the Georgia case (though the prosecutor did inappropriate things that jeopardized the case). Trump escaped accountability for the actions that warranted them, by being elected president again.
I'm convinced that literally anything can be rationalized through false-perceptions and whataboutism, and these are perfect examples.
Maybe someone can find better statistics than I but from what I found in Minneapolis, George Floyd Ground Zero, there were over 600 arrests, and all but 26 were dismissed. Granted, Police were not in a situation to arrest but preventative maintenance posture during the riots. Over $500 million in damages that has set a city back a few decades until the local idiots elect new leadership. Towers are selling for less than half what it cost to build them in the 80's and 90's.
I can't speak for the country but in Minnesota many feel, and I believe rightfully so, that justice wasn't served by this states leftwing government and press. Downtown MPLS is a ghost town and well deserved.
Mr. Daly is 100% correct that there were hundreds of formal charges and convictions from the Antifa & BLM protests and that this was under-reported by both conservatives and liberals for self-serving - but different - reasons.
Anyone truly interested in knowing what is really going on must set aside their gut feelings and actively seek out a variety of news media. Even then, it can be a real challenge.
One rule of thumb is that any report that makes one side feel validated and any other side look deceitful is a one-sided report and may even be deceitful even if not strictly untruthful. Sometimes both or all sides are represented, but the facts benefitting one side are deemphasized if not camouflaged. And here, I'm talking about the so-called journalistic reporting of the network anchors.
The commentary on cable news stations - with the possible exception of NewsNation - is frequently one-sided. How could anyone disagree with these commentators based on the facts they're presenting?
In his book "Addicted to Outrage" Glenn Beck cites a cold war joke: There was a horse race between a Soviet jockey and an American jockey. The Soviet press truthfully reported that the Soviet jockey came in second place and that the American jockey came in second to last. The American press accurately reported that the American jockey won.
Today's American news media frequently functions more like the Soviet press, but in many cases more subtly.
How could Trump not pardon the January 6th insurgents? In his mind they were patriots stopping the steal. The question is does Trump really believe this? I'm not sure he does or cares what the truth is. The Pardons are simply a justification to validate his meme. If he can justify this what else can he justify? My two cents.
"How could Trump not pardon the January 6th insurgents? In his mind they were patriots stopping the steal. "
I hope you're not thinking that Trump's or the 1/6 rioters' belief systems is pertinent to their culpability. Once the individual states certify their election results, our Constitution - specifically Art. II and the 12th A. - determines the outcome. The rest is ceremonial, with rare exceptions - e.g. Congress finds hard evidence that states legislatures and governors were complicit in fraudulent vote counts - that don't apply here. Beliefs hardly mitigate culpability for rioting, assaults, or defacing property.
"I'm not sure he does or cares what the truth is. "
I'm sure he cares about the truth only when it supports his ends. I'm sure that he's amoral, except perhaps in certain non-political matters.
This is not a defense of the January 6th rioters nor Trump’s plan to pardon them , but it perhaps may explain the attitude. Ben Shapiro points out (correctly) of the Dems using “LAWFARE” to punish political enemies and being selective in their outrage. Many on the right feel that the all the destruction and chaos from BLM & ANTIFA thugs went unpunished by the liberal progressive Dems because they were sympathetic to the cause. Shapiro says the attitude that would normally deter people from letting their own tribe members off the hook no longer applies after the Dems’ behavior during those “mostly peaceful protests.” Hence the current attitude of many in the right wing tribe is that “well we already saw how the Dems got away (with the aid of their. Liberal media allies) with their decision to let THEIR hooligans off the hook and cover for their chaos, so why should we on the right obey the law since our political enemies refuse to do it?”
What Ben's engaging in is whataboutism, which he used to reject.
A few things:
Hundreds of "BLM & ANTIFA thugs" were in fact prosecuted, convicted, and served time over the 2020 riots. It just happened at the state level, because most of the crimes weren't on federal property. This has gone under-reported by the left-wing media (because lots on that side ideologically aligned with the BLM cause) and also under-reported by the right-wing media (to bolster the bias-confirming narrative that those individuals got off scot-free).
The New York case was unquestionably "lawfare" (as Bernie and I have written and talked about many times), though Trump clearly did what he was charged with. The Jack Smith indictments were serious and appropriate, as was the Georgia case (though the prosecutor did inappropriate things that jeopardized the case). Trump escaped accountability for the actions that warranted them, by being elected president again.
I'm convinced that literally anything can be rationalized through false-perceptions and whataboutism, and these are perfect examples.
Maybe someone can find better statistics than I but from what I found in Minneapolis, George Floyd Ground Zero, there were over 600 arrests, and all but 26 were dismissed. Granted, Police were not in a situation to arrest but preventative maintenance posture during the riots. Over $500 million in damages that has set a city back a few decades until the local idiots elect new leadership. Towers are selling for less than half what it cost to build them in the 80's and 90's.
I can't speak for the country but in Minnesota many feel, and I believe rightfully so, that justice wasn't served by this states leftwing government and press. Downtown MPLS is a ghost town and well deserved.
Mr. Daly is 100% correct that there were hundreds of formal charges and convictions from the Antifa & BLM protests and that this was under-reported by both conservatives and liberals for self-serving - but different - reasons.
Anyone truly interested in knowing what is really going on must set aside their gut feelings and actively seek out a variety of news media. Even then, it can be a real challenge.
One rule of thumb is that any report that makes one side feel validated and any other side look deceitful is a one-sided report and may even be deceitful even if not strictly untruthful. Sometimes both or all sides are represented, but the facts benefitting one side are deemphasized if not camouflaged. And here, I'm talking about the so-called journalistic reporting of the network anchors.
The commentary on cable news stations - with the possible exception of NewsNation - is frequently one-sided. How could anyone disagree with these commentators based on the facts they're presenting?
In his book "Addicted to Outrage" Glenn Beck cites a cold war joke: There was a horse race between a Soviet jockey and an American jockey. The Soviet press truthfully reported that the Soviet jockey came in second place and that the American jockey came in second to last. The American press accurately reported that the American jockey won.
Today's American news media frequently functions more like the Soviet press, but in many cases more subtly.
Democrats are evil because they vote for evil candidates.
The July 6 riot is just that. When racial riots happen, very few are charged.
The scale of justice is abused. President Trump will use his scale of justice. We will see what happens.
How could Trump not pardon the January 6th insurgents? In his mind they were patriots stopping the steal. The question is does Trump really believe this? I'm not sure he does or cares what the truth is. The Pardons are simply a justification to validate his meme. If he can justify this what else can he justify? My two cents.
"How could Trump not pardon the January 6th insurgents? In his mind they were patriots stopping the steal. "
I hope you're not thinking that Trump's or the 1/6 rioters' belief systems is pertinent to their culpability. Once the individual states certify their election results, our Constitution - specifically Art. II and the 12th A. - determines the outcome. The rest is ceremonial, with rare exceptions - e.g. Congress finds hard evidence that states legislatures and governors were complicit in fraudulent vote counts - that don't apply here. Beliefs hardly mitigate culpability for rioting, assaults, or defacing property.
"I'm not sure he does or cares what the truth is. "
I'm sure he cares about the truth only when it supports his ends. I'm sure that he's amoral, except perhaps in certain non-political matters.
"I hope you're not thinking that Trump's or the 1/6 rioters' belief systems is pertinent to their culpability. "
I'm not thinking that. I'm trying to wrap my head around Trump's warped perception of January 6th which is no easy task.
I hope you're braving the weather there. It's getting cold where I am. It even gets down into the low 60s at night. :)
Well, I woke up to about -10 in my town. And that's not wind chill. But heat wave of mid-thirties this week though. I dream of 60's.