Qanon shaman...likely to get a new trial considering the government withheld video evidence from the defense....

[martybegan]

But wait! I can show video of the people who weren’t attacking so that destroys your “narrative”. See. It doesn’t work when it’s the opposite side.

I’m not entertaining your pointless distraction.

None of this changes anything about the conservative media bubble. It’s just a distraction by you. Part of your permission structure to exist solely in your media bubble.

They were all pressed against the doors breaking them. I don't have a narrative, I have facts in this situation.

Conservatives can't have a bubble because the left will not allow them one, the shutting down of this speech shows that.

 

[Marener]

They were all pressed against the doors breaking them. I don't have a narrative, I have facts in this situation.

Conservatives can't have a bubble because the left will not allow them one, the shutting down of this speech shows that.

Anyone can have a bubble. No one can force anyone to expose themselves to other voices. They definitely can’t force them to hear other voices.

Conservatives have crafted thick walls amongst themselves. They have a prolific media ecosystem and have indoctrinated themselves to ignore any media source if it isn’t from one of their trusted sources.

How many conservatives do you think watched the January 6th committee hearings? Conservative media spent a lot of time convincing them they shouldn’t.

 

[martybegan]

Anyone can have a bubble. No one can force anyone to expose themselves to other voices. They definitely can’t force them to hear other voices.

Conservatives have crafted thick walls amongst themselves. They have a prolific media ecosystem and have indoctrinated themselves to ignore any media source if it isn’t from one of their trusted sources.

How many conservatives do you think watched the January 6th committee hearings? Conservative media spent a lot of time convincing them they shouldn’t.

Again, unless they don't watch TV, use the internet, or listen to radio at all, the left wing viewpoints are EVERYWHERE.

Why watch show trials that you know are show trials?

Once it was all Dems with a few token TDS idiots, it became a dog and pony show.

 

[Marener]

Again, unless they don't watch TV, use the internet, or listen to radio at all, the left wing viewpoints are EVERYWHERE.

Why watch show trials that you know are show trials?

Once it was all Dems with a few token TDS idiots, it became a dog and pony show.

They can watch TV, tuned to Fox News day in and day out.

They can use the internet, letting social media algorithms exclude any contradictory information.

They can listen to the radio, tuned to conservative talk radio.

It’s really very easy to exclude left wing viewpoints.

Why watch the committee hearings? Because you have an open mind and want to hear multiple viewpoints? Your attitude exemplifies the right wing media bubble.

 

[martybegan]

They can watch TV, tuned to Fox News day in and day out.

They can use the internet, letting social media algorithms exclude any contradictory information.

They can listen to the radio, tuned to conservative talk radio.

It’s really very easy to exclude left wing viewpoints.

Why watch the committee hearings? Because you have an open mind and want to hear multiple viewpoints? Your attitude exemplifies the right wing media bubble.

Far easier to exclude right wing ones.

I read summaries of the hearings, and that confirmed my original viewpoint of them.

 

[Ralph Norton]

How many conservatives do you think watched the January 6th committee hearings?

I did. I watched for the first 5 minutes which consisted of Liz Cheney reading off a teleprompter while pretending NOT to be reading off a teleprompter and which demonstrated 2 things:
1. Liz Cheney is too stupid to speak extemporaneously.
2. The "hearings" were a kangaroo court whose findings were clearly decided long before they aired.

PS how many liberals actually watched them? The fact is that most Americans didn't give a fuck - and still don't.

 

[Marener]

Far easier to exclude right wing ones.

I read summaries of the hearings, and that confirmed my original viewpoint of them.

I disagree. The left wing media actually does a better job talking about right wing perspectives than the other way around. Left wing media (as you put it) still tries to adhere to some journalistic integrity.

Reading a summary of a hearing written by a right wing media author is exactly the problem. You don’t get information from sources. It had to be transformed by passing through the right wing media machine. You don’t get to make up your own mind. They made it up for you. They don’t want you to watch the hearings. They want to tell you what happened.

 

[tahuyaman]

Drug cartels are overwhelming the southern border and causing chaos and deaths in America and the probmem is QAnon and some joker in an Indian head dress.

LOL.

 

[Ralph Norton]

The left wing media actually does a better job talking about right wing perspectives than the other way around. Left wing media (as you put it) still tries to adhere to some journalistic integrity.

Clearly you haven't watched MSNBC in..........well, ever.

 

[Marener]

Clearly you haven't watched MSNBC in..........well, ever.

I don’t think MSNBC has journalists.

Although yesterday Ari Melber had Trump’s criminal defense attorney on, it was excellent. Wouldn’t that count as a right wing perspective?

 

[martybegan]

I disagree. The left wing media actually does a better job talking about right wing perspectives than the other way around. Left wing media (as you put it) still tries to adhere to some journalistic integrity.

Reading a summary of a hearing written by a right wing media author is exactly the problem. You don’t get information from sources. It had to be transformed by passing through the right wing media machine. You don’t get to make up your own mind. They made it up for you. They don’t want you to watch the hearings. They want to tell you what happened.

Only in derision does it talk about them, unless it's certain topics and then they pretend the right position doesn't have the right to exist.

As a pundit once said "When Republicans screw up, that's the story, when Dems screw up the Republican's reaction is the story. The old "Republicans Pounce" trope.

The whole hearing was a left wing setup, so adding a right wing filter evens it out.

At least I know my sources are biased, you pretend your sources aren't.

 

[Marener]

Only in derision does it talk about them, unless it's certain topics and then they pretend the right position doesn't have the right to exist.

As a pundit once said "When Republicans screw up, that's the story, when Dems screw up the Republican's reaction is the story. The old "Republicans Pounce" trope.

The whole hearing was a left wing setup, so adding a right wing filter evens it out.

At least I know my sources are biased, you pretend your sources aren't.

So often, the right's position isn't based on anything in reality. They keep chasing these boogeymen. We see it everywhere from imaginary voter fraud the strangely specific outrage about drag queens.

Your right wing filter is what keeps you ignorant, Marty. It doesn't even anything out. You should realize that. Acknowledging your sources are biased doesn't change your ignorance. It only acknowledges that you have no interest in hearing outside voices to decide for yourself.

You want to read a right wing source about the committee hearings, go ahead. If you don't watch them yourself, then you don't know if your right wing source is giving you good information or if they're just telling you what you want to hear.

 

[martybegan]

So often, the right's position isn't based on anything in reality. They keep chasing these boogeymen. We see it everywhere from imaginary voter fraud the strangely specific outrage about drag queens.

Your right wing filter is what keeps you ignorant, Marty. It doesn't even anything out. You should realize that. Acknowledging your sources are biased doesn't change your ignorance. It only acknowledges that you have no interest in hearing outside voices to decide for yourself.

Dismiss concerns all you want, that just shows you can't see out of your own progressive bubble.

I check CNN every day, I click links about what the sites I visit talk about, and those are direct links to the lefties themselves.

I hear the outside voices and realize they are fucking retarded, like you.

 

[Ralph Norton]

I don’t think MSNBC has journalists.

Although yesterday Ari Melber had Trump’s criminal defense attorney on, it was excellent. Wouldn’t that count as a right wing perspective?

Possibly. How often does that happen?
Fox invites Dems/ liberals to appear on a regular basis.

 

[Marener]

Possibly. How often does that happen?
Fox invites Dems/ liberals to appear on a regular basis.

Dunno. I don’t watch very often.

 

[Marener]

Dismiss concerns all you want, that just shows you can't see out of your own progressive bubble.

I check CNN every day, I click links about what the sites I visit talk about, and those are direct links to the lefties themselves.

I hear the outside voices and realize they are fucking retarded, like you.

But I don't just dismiss these concerns out of hand. That's what you do.

I look deeper. I think of questions. I seek primary sources. I scrutinize who is saying it. I scrutinize what they have to back it up.

With Chansley, I don't just look at the two minutes of video that Tucker Carlson produced, but I looked at the charges he was brought up on and the statement of offense which provides a much deeper look at what Chansley did that day, which showed that the snippets of video were a short period of time he was in the capitol, most of which was spent arguing with officers who were trying to get him to leave and then taking pictures in while occupying the dais in the Senate Chambers. Since I'm also not just getting my news from right wing sources, I know about things you don't. That's why I'm constantly educating you and you're constantly relying on ambiguity to justify your beliefs.

These are questions that you are either too lazy or too afraid to ask. When someone tells you the story you want, why would you ruin it by attempting to disprove it? You don't.

Ambiguity is a weapon for people like you. If you can pretend not to know anything, you can believe whatever you want.

 

[martybegan]

But I don't just dismiss these concerns out of hand. That's what you do.

I look deeper. I think of questions. I seek primary sources. I scrutinize who is saying it. I scrutinize what they have to back it up.

With Chansley, I don't just look at the two minutes of video that Tucker Carlson produced, but I looked at the charges he was brought up on and the statement of offense which provides a much deeper look at what Chansley did that day, which showed that the snippets of video were a short period of time he was in the capitol, most of which was spent arguing with officers who were trying to get him to leave and then taking pictures in while occupying the dais in the Senate Chambers. Since I'm also not just getting my news from right wing sources, I know about things you don't. That's why I'm constantly educating you and you're constantly relying on ambiguity to justify your beliefs.

These are questions that you are either too lazy or too afraid to ask. When someone tells you the story you want, why would you ruin it by attempting to disprove it? You don't.

Ambiguity is a weapon for people like you. If you can pretend not to know anything, you can believe whatever you want.

You think as deep as a street puddle.

Now you just justified political persecution without even knowing it, deep thinker. lol

 

[Marener]

You think as deep as a street puddle.

Now you just justified political persecution without even knowing it, deep thinker. lol

Only because you accept the narrative that you and the right wing media have crafted regarding January 6th.

 

[Delldude]

The guy who wore the indian headdress in the capitol will likely get a new trial......the prosecution withheld video evidence from the defense....

I doubt it, his sentence will be over by the time they get done doing legal dancing.He's done something like three and has less than a year left. There are obstacles like DOJ 'convinced' him to waive his appeal right in the plea deal.
Sure as hell looks like they knew he could get at least a reduced sentence on appeal.

Poster Boy for the left.

 

[bodecea]

Any re-trial yet?