Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

Sure, Mr. Zealous and Righteous, Mr. My Point Is The Only Relevant Thing. Whatever you say. Aye aye, Capitano.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So post something that isn't MSM that shows what Roy Epps did as you allege.

They won't because they either don't have evidence and just "know" it - as if that is supposed to be in any way coherent or credible, or the only so-called evidence they have is from some freakazoid conspiracy rag that has zero track record for truthfulness.

Yeah, because spy agencies, who regularly conduct information warfare through MSM, are going to tell on themselves through the same MSM .

What other J6ers got 60 minutes puff piece interviews?

See how it goes?

Oh so now the "spy agencies" are involved? Are you seriously trying to claim the CIA was involved in J6? And again, without you having even a single shred of credible evidence to prove it?

You just keep showing yourself to be nuttier and nuttier. The exercise was to prove that you are NOT a right wing nutjob. But instead you've only confirmed it.

No, that is not the exercise. Stop taking the thread off topic. If you want to create another "insurrection" thread, go for it.

Seems to me the brainwashing of the right wing to become Trump cultists who earnestly believe Trump never did anything wrong, and that everything being presented in the numerous court cases is somehow fabricated, and that the J6 coup didn't really happen - is completely on-topic to this discussion.

We're talking about truth and reality versus fabrications foisted on the people. The J6 denial is a gross fabrication. The "Trump is the victim of a fabricated witch hunt" narrative is a gross fabrication. People believe those instead of believing the truth.

How is that not on point?

Make a new thread if you want to discuss J6. Stop derailing and being obsessive.

Stop being obsessive about trying to gatekeep the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Actually, the real point here is "why do we get called trolls for posting x talking point" - as if x talking point were legitimate doubt - and the answer to that is typically because x talking point was engineered for you by by a professional troll who is intentionally trying to sow doubt so as to manipulate people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So post something that isn't MSM that shows what Roy Epps did as you allege.

They won't because they either don't have evidence and just "know" it - as if that is supposed to be in any way coherent or credible, or the only so-called evidence they have is from some freakazoid conspiracy rag that has zero track record for truthfulness.

Yeah, because spy agencies, who regularly conduct information warfare through MSM, are going to tell on themselves through the same MSM .

What other J6ers got 60 minutes puff piece interviews?

See how it goes?

Oh so now the "spy agencies" are involved? Are you seriously trying to claim the CIA was involved in J6? And again, without you having even a single shred of credible evidence to prove it?

You just keep showing yourself to be nuttier and nuttier. The exercise was to prove that you are NOT a right wing nutjob. But instead you've only confirmed it.

No, that is not the exercise. Stop taking the thread off topic. If you want to create another "insurrection" thread, go for it.

Seems to me the brainwashing of the right wing to become Trump cultists who earnestly believe Trump never did anything wrong, and that everything being presented in the numerous court cases is somehow fabricated, and that the J6 coup didn't really happen - is completely on-topic to this discussion.

We're talking about truth and reality versus fabrications foisted on the people. The J6 denial is a gross fabrication. The "Trump is the victim of a fabricated witch hunt" narrative is a gross fabrication. People believe those instead of believing the truth.

How is that not on point?

Make a new thread if you want to discuss J6. Stop derailing and being obsessive.

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So post something that isn't MSM that shows what Roy Epps did as you allege.

They won't because they either don't have evidence and just "know" it - as if that is supposed to be in any way coherent or credible, or the only so-called evidence they have is from some freakazoid conspiracy rag that has zero track record for truthfulness.

Yeah, because spy agencies, who regularly conduct information warfare through MSM, are going to tell on themselves through the same MSM .

What other J6ers got 60 minutes puff piece interviews?

See how it goes?

Oh so now the "spy agencies" are involved? Are you seriously trying to claim the CIA was involved in J6? And again, without you having even a single shred of credible evidence to prove it?

You just keep showing yourself to be nuttier and nuttier. The exercise was to prove that you are NOT a right wing nutjob. But instead you've only confirmed it.

No, that is not the exercise. Stop taking the thread off topic. If you want to create another "insurrection" thread, go for it.

Seems to me the brainwashing of the right wing to become Trump cultists who earnestly believe Trump never did anything wrong, and that everything being presented in the numerous court cases is somehow fabricated, and that the J6 coup didn't really happen - is completely on-topic to this discussion.

We're talking about truth and reality versus fabrications foisted on the people. The J6 denial is a gross fabrication. The "Trump is the victim of a fabricated witch hunt" narrative is a gross fabrication. People believe those instead of believing the truth.

How is that not on point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So post something that isn't MSM that shows what Roy Epps did as you allege.

They won't because they either don't have evidence and just "know" it - as if that is supposed to be in any way coherent or credible, or the only so-called evidence they have is from some freakazoid conspiracy rag that has zero track record for truthfulness.

Yeah, because spy agencies, who regularly conduct information warfare through MSM, are going to tell on themselves through the same MSM .

What other J6ers got 60 minutes puff piece interviews?

See how it goes?

Oh so now the "spy agencies" are involved? Are you seriously trying to claim the CIA was involved in J6? And again, without you having even a single shred of credible evidence to prove it?

You just keep showing yourself to be nuttier and nuttier. The exercise was to prove that you are NOT a right wing nutjob. But instead you've only confirmed it.

No, that is not the exercise. Stop taking the thread off topic. If you want to create another "insurrection" thread, go for it.