Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 09:27:53 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   Serious question. Did they find any evidence yet in all the trials and stuff going on that clearly shows #Trump intentionally want the capitol riot?

   When it happened I saw little clear evidence it was intentional but at the same time based on his behavior and personality I totally would expect it was intentional and somewhere at some point there might have been a record of him saying he wanted it.... If there is any actual evidence I'd love to see it if anyone has any as I havent been following as closely as I should.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 09:33:48 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Alpha Kilo Papa

     @Alphakilopapa Considering I intentionally avoid "the media" and have little to no exposure it says a lot less than you think it says.

   • Embed this notice
     Alpha Kilo Papa (alphakilopapa@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 09:33:49 JST Alpha Kilo Papa

     in reply to

     @freemo Considering how the media treats trump and every little thing he does the fact that you have to ask should say a lot.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 09:36:00 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Alpha Kilo Papa

     @Alphakilopapa

     Dont assume what I cant avoid, that was my ex's mistake!

   • Embed this notice
     Alpha Kilo Papa (alphakilopapa@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 09:36:01 JST Alpha Kilo Papa

     in reply to

     @freemo If they had found something you wouldnt be able to avoid it.

   • Embed this notice
     volkris@qoto.org's status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:09:23 JST volkris

     in reply to

     @freemo the thing is, we live in a time where two people can see the exact same thing, read the exact same words, and come away with exactly opposite ideas about what they just saw or read.

     So in that sort of environment... the answer to your question depends on who you ask.

     It's just the state of society, that we can look at the same weather report and disagree about whether it's raining or not.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:12:34 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Steve's Place

     @steter

     Why ask?

     Why would someone ask for facts… why are they important… really? Because the truth matters.

     He’s a stochastic terrorist using mob boss techniques.

     Yea I generally agree with that, he uses intimidation tactics and I am more than happy to see him get in trouble for that pattern.

     Former associates are telling us exactly that.

     Sure, that isnt what I asked about, but sure, there is little doubt that he is a bully.

     He bellows threats & intimidates people.

     He sure does… not what I asked about, but yea he does.

     Why would Mussolini order if he can feign innocence by just threatening, , then painting the executor as crazy?

     1) because he isnt very smart and 2) I care about his actual innocence, not what he feigns or other accuse him of, but the truth, and thus why I ask.

     It’s up to the courts to decide if a mob boss is above the law or not. Thus far, apparently so.

     Wait.. thats a contradiction… your saying the courts decided he is above the law because you decided he is guilty and they have not, but then int he same sentence say “its up to the courts” in an attempt to deny me any right to make my own determination? That seems strange.

   • Embed this notice
     Steve's Place (steter@mastodon.stevesworld.co)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:12:38 JST Steve's Place

     in reply to

     @freemo Why ask? He's a stochastic terrorist using mob boss techniques. Former associates are telling us exactly that. He never orders. He bellows threats & intimidates people. Why would Mussolini order if he can feign innocence by just threatening, then painting the executor as crazy? He is who he is. It's up to the courts to decide if a mob boss is above the law or not. Thus far, apparently so.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:21:57 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Steve's Place

     @steter

     Do you argue for a living or as a hobby?

     As a research scientist one could say I do it for a living.

     don’t care. I want the son of a bitch behind bars. I don’t care if he’s arrested for swiping a candy bar.

     Me too I’d love to see him behind bars… again not asking about if he “deserves to be behind bars”. I am asking specifically about the jan 6 riots so I can determine if that is the reason he sould be behind bars or one of the other reasons.

     Have a nice evening by fucking off.

     I suppose thats one way to say you dont care about facts without saying it… gladly, bye.

   • Embed this notice
     Steve's Place (steter@mastodon.stevesworld.co)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:22:00 JST Steve's Place

     in reply to

     @freemo Do you argue for a living or as a hobby?

     I don't care. I want the son of a bitch behind bars. I don't care if he's arrested for swiping a candy bar.

     "Wait.. that's a contradiction."

     Have a nice evening by fucking off.

   • Embed this notice
     Hawkmoon (hawkmoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:23:51 JST Hawkmoon

     in reply to

     @freemo

     He summoned a mob, some of whom were armed, in the weeks before J6, telling them the election was stolen. He was inviting them to something called the 'stop the steal' rally. People attending knew beforehand the plan was to march on the Capitol, and this just happened to be on the day Congress was certifying the election results. In the midst of breaking into the Capitol, he tweeted that he loved them. Now it's time for your block.

     https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-committee-final-report-trump-bcfea6162fe9cfa0d120e86d069af0e4

     https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-capitol-riot-probe-turns-focus-trump-allies-extremist-groups-2022-07-12/

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:23:51 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Hawkmoon

     @Hawkmoon

     Thanks, that was all information I knew. I was asking if there was anything that came up that is a more direct connection of him explicitly stating it.

     Nice to know you block people who both hate trump, but actually want to know what the facts are... takes a pretty epic level of being a piece of shit to get there, congrats.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 10:37:46 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • volkris

     @volkris Very true of course... but i care less about if there was evidence you may disagree with or find less damning and more about hearing about what evidence, questionable or otherwise, that may have came up that is less speculative.

   • Embed this notice
     Free Peoples Free Press (freepeoplesfreepress@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 11:12:47 JST Free Peoples Free Press

     in reply to

     • Hawkmoon

     @freemo @Hawkmoon

     Dear Dr. Freemo: People should not block other people for differences of opinion. I believe that Trump intentionally incited the violence on Jan 6th and so does a Colorado judge.

     Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in 'insurrection' but allows him on ballot

     https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-judges-allows-trump-primary-ballot-delays-decision-general-election-2023-11-18/

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 11:14:14 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Free Peoples Free Press
     • Hawkmoon

     @freepeoplesfreepress

     The thing is there is no difference of opinion. I didnt state if i thought he intentionally started the riots or not. I only asked if there was any solid evidence that came out from the trials.

     I care very little about anyones opinion even a judge about trump, I do care about what evidence may have came out in court though.

     @Hawkmoon

   • Embed this notice
     volkris@qoto.org's status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 13:09:17 JST volkris

     in reply to

     @freemo Yeah, asking people to put their evidence on their table sounds like a pretty good idea.

     But it does get frustrating when you ask if there has been evidence, and people were reply that there absolutely has, and what they present isn't evidence at all, and you point that out, and they say it is, and at that point there's nowhere else to go with it.

     It's raining outside!
     What's your evidence?
     Well here's a bucket full of water from the rain!
     ...That bucket is empty.
     No it's full of rain! Look at all this water in it!

     Siiiigh

     I refer to it as the book club theory. We all showed up to the book club, and we all read books with the same title, but the plot lines were different in different people's copies, so it's pretty darn hard to discuss the book.

   • Embed this notice
     Erik Haugen (ech@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 13:25:27 JST Erik Haugen

     in reply to

     @freemo I've been wondering this also – he said things like "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." in the speech right before. To people who think everything Trump does is axiomatically evil, this is an obvious smoking gun. But, of course, that is embarrassingly absurd: lots of politicians regularly use metaphors like that in their rhetoric.

     From what I've heard, it's pretty clear he didn't want any violence or do anything to try to make that happen. He just wanted a protest outside the Capitol building: "we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give... them (republican senators) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." and "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

     I don't think you're going to get anyone to point to anything better than that.

     If he was trying some kind of violent takeover on 1/6, there would have been someone there with something a bit more potent than zip ties.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 13:32:58 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Erik Haugen

     @ech

     > I've been wondering this also – he said things like "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." in the speech right before. To people who think everything Trump does is axiomatically evil, this is an obvious smoking gun. But, of course, that is embarrassingly absurd: lots of politicians regularly use metaphors like that in their rhetoric.

     Thats my thinking. On the surface it is no unusual than any other politicians language at rallies. That said I wouldnt be surprised if Trump intended a riot secretly, it would be like him, but thats not proof and I care more about what is objectively true than what I think about him... So I am very curious if there is any solid evidence or if its just "come on man, you know the dude is evil", even if he is.

     > From what I've heard, it's pretty clear he didn't want any violence or do anything to try to make that happen. He just wanted a protest outside the Capitol building: "we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give... them (republican senators) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." and "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

     On the surface I agree, there is an argument to be made that publicly he made choices that show he was not inciting violence... Though again i am mostly curious about what may have came out in court regarding his intent that was not public. It would not surprise me if people have testified or recordings uncovered where he did intend a riot. If that exists I'd like to know, if not I may not like it but I'd have to admit that a court shouldnt have cause, no matter how much I dislike him or suspect his motives. Evidence is all that matters.

   • Embed this notice
     Erik Haugen (ech@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 13:44:09 JST Erik Haugen

     in reply to

     @freemo I don't always agree with you, but sometimes you say it perfectly. 😂

     I feel like the fraud trial has more of a leg to stand on. We'll see, I guess.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 13:44:56 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Erik Haugen

     @ech hahah I have brief moments of clarity from time to time, best we dont squander them :)

     And from what little I know I'd agree there.

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 00:49:51 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     @freemo

     if you want something 100%, not that I know of. but many people like Bannon refused to testify.

     https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/07/january-6-witnesses-refused-testify/10984248002/

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:14:55 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • william.maggos
     • volkris

     @wjmaggos

     I find it pretty easy to debunk. The issue is just that everyone will scream at you that you are wrong. So it only works if you arent easily manipulated by popular opinion.

     @volkris

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:14:58 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     • volkris

     @volkris @freemo

     figuring out how to think about what's true is harder than it's ever been thanks to the internet and social media, but we're still better off. we just have to up our game. as individuals and institutions. #LiberalValues

   • Embed this notice
     volkris@qoto.org's status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:15:00 JST volkris

     in reply to

     • william.maggos

     @wjmaggos when you’re uncertain about one claim that doesn’t mean the opposite claim is definitely true, and this is a really important concept.

     Right now we have broad swaths of the public marching forward with an assumption of guilt that is far from proven, and it’s pretty important that we recognize that because otherwise we end up with the same old situation where two different people can’t communicate because they can’t agree on what is and isn’t basic truth.

     If there isn’t evidence showing that Trump is guilty, as @freemo requested, that doesn’t mean he or OJ are definitely innocent.

     However, it does mean that the assumptions about guilt are really overblown and hysterical.

     This is pretty important right now as serious legal matters are weighing heavily on the public.

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:15:02 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     • volkris

     @volkris @freemo

     so no. just like we should be saying OJ didn't kill anybody.

   • Embed this notice
     volkris@qoto.org's status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:15:03 JST volkris

     in reply to

     • william.maggos

     @wjmaggos so no?

     @freemo

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:16:29 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • william.maggos
     • volkris

     @wjmaggos

     Big difference. I asked if there was any solid evidence, I did not ask if he was found guilty.

     For OJ there was plenty of evidence we all got to see, he was just found innocent regardless.

     In trumps case so far no one has provided any evidence, regardless of what the courts conclude.

     @volkris

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:33:12 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • william.maggos
     • volkris

     @wjmaggos

     I didnt ask for proof, I asked for evidence.

     So if your saying there are things which reasonably and objectively suggest this, then its valid. If there is enough of it to draw a conclusion, its valid.

     I wouldnt put it past Trump, I even kinda expect him to be guilty. But its purely speculative unless you can list some evidence.

     In the case of OJ he fled from the cops, there was blood in his car that matched the victim, and tons of pretty solid evidence. There is no evidence even remotely comparable to Trump, feel free to correct me if im wrong.

     @volkris

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:33:14 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     • volkris

     @freemo @volkris

     technically different, yes. but we don't have video of OJ killing them. we don't have a recording of Trump saying go do what they did. from what he said at the ellipse and before about the status of the election and what others said about that day that he probably was in contact with and his actions while it was happening, we make assumptions. as we do about OJ. courts aren't always right anyway.

     I reiterate. we must up our game. we never really know anything but we continue.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:40:45 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • william.maggos
     • volkris

     @wjmaggos

     I kinda agree, there are more **intentional** false claims now, but before the internet there were just as many false claims its just now they are **unintentional**.

     Back before the internet finding out if something was true or not was a monumentally difficult task as we just didnt have the group resources that we have today. Encyclopedias were bulky books with tons of errors compared to wikipedia today, which still has errors, but far fewer and the knowledge is far more expansive and advanced.

     @volkris

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:40:46 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     • volkris

     @volkris @freemo

     what's new are the odds you're gonna see some false claim, because there's more incentives to push them (ads or donations and tribal love) and easier to do so (natural virality and algorithms and it's easier to fake shit). I don't think people are less critical than they used to be but they have to deal with more and you're more likely to see what they're thinking cause they'll share it instead of needing to talk to them.

   • Embed this notice
     volkris@qoto.org's status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 03:40:47 JST volkris

     in reply to

     • william.maggos

     @wjmaggos The reason I don’t think that’s the case is because there’s nothing particularly new about questionable sources of information and questionable ideas being floated around socially.

     I don’t think it’s harder than ever because it’s really not that different.

     It’s just that all too many have normalized faulty reasoning and acceptance of bias confirmation instead of legitimate examination and consideration of claims put before us.

     For example, @freemo asked about solid evidence here, and that’s something I see far too few people doing.

     I don’t think it’s hard to figure out how to think about what’s true.

     It’s just that so many people don’t.