Is The 1/6 Commission Coming?

[luthervol]

Who cares what RS had to say?

No one should, but the fact that Trump does is what has always been so shockingly telling.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Ok, so what?

There is a very clear, although indirect, link from Trump (through Roger Stone) to people responsible for acts of mob violence at the Capitol on 1/6 - the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

Members of militant, extremist factions of the right, believed that mob violence had been sanctioned by the Trump administration. Through Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, members of those two groups believed that through acts of violence, they could help Trump retain the presidency ... and that they would be rewarded with pardons for their efforts when it was over.

 

[BowlBrother85]

No one should, but the fact that Trump does is what has always been so shockingly telling.

Republicans continue to underestimate what members of their extremist groups are willing to believe, and what they are willing to do, in support of those beliefs. It doesn't take much prodding to call these people towards taking irrational actions.

 

[volinbham]

Roger Stone is clearly advocating for mob violence of some nature, as a means of helping Donald Trump retain the presidency. Who do you think Roger Stone was hoping to reach with those comments, if it wasn't militant, extremist factions of the right, such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys?

we don't even know what he said fully or who it was too. do you think he was making those comments in hope that a documentary crew would include them in the film that these militant, extremist factions would watch and react accordingly?

he's not talking to the public in these comments in any way. the film makers searched but found no connection between him and these groups

 

[volinbham]

You have to remember that the intended audience for those comments from Roger Stone (members of the militant, extremist factions from the right, such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys), included people who cared a great deal about literally anything that "Q Anon" said. They hung on every word of Q Anon's 8 chan posts for years.

Of course, members of militant, extremist factions from the right, are going to also care what a confidante of Donald Trump says. You are kidding yourself if you don't think that those comments from Roger Stone reached members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys ... and just like with whatever Q Anon said - they took Roger Stone's words very seriously. Not as hollow rhetoric to be ignored, but as orders to be followed.

where are you getting who the intended audience was - he appears to be talking to the film makers

 

[volinbham]

Republicans continue to underestimate what members of their extremist groups are willing to believe, and what they are willing to do, in support of those beliefs. It doesn't take much prodding to call these people towards taking irrational actions.

you mean like telling people their political opponents are an existential threat to democracy and the American way of life? Nah, that wouldn't prod any irrational actions by extremists

 

[hog88]

you mean like telling people their political opponents are an existential threat to democracy and the American way of life? Nah, that wouldn't prod any irrational actions by extremists

But that's different.

 

[luthervol]

you mean like telling people their political opponents are an existential threat to democracy and the American way of life? Nah, that wouldn't prod any irrational actions by extremists

Roger Stone and the like minded are indeed existential threats to democracy.
Hell, what's more of a threat do democracy than saying "to hell with the vote count, let's get to the violence"?

 

[BowlBrother85]

you mean like telling people their political opponents are an existential threat to democracy and the American way of life? Nah, that wouldn't prod any irrational actions by extremists

Roger Stone's words clearly suggested that violence was an acceptable course of action to take in helping Donald Trump retain the presidency.

Joe Biden was being divisive and playing tribal politics. I don't condone that. It's poor leadership. Joe Biden isn't the President of the Democratic Party. Biden is the President of the United State, and he should speak to the American people as such. We have already had way too much of "Us and Them" in our nation's political discourse.

However, what Roger Stone said, and what Joe Biden said, are indeed fundamentally different.

Joe Biden did not suggest that violence was an acceptable course of action to take towards achieving a political objective. In fact, Joe Biden does not even mention violence at all, as Roger Stone clearly did. Roger Stone was explicitly calling for violence with his "Let's get right to the violence," remark. Whereas, Joe Biden never said any such thing.

You frequently draw false equivalencies. You have done so, once again.

 

[BowlBrother85]

But that's different.

Yes, it clearly was.

Joe Biden did not suggest that violence was an acceptable course of action to take towards achieving a political objective ... and Roger Stone did.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Roger Stone and the like minded are indeed existential threats to democracy.
Hell, what's more of a threat do democracy than saying "to hell with the vote count, let's get to the violence"?

Let's be critical of Joe Biden, when he deserves it.

Biden's remarks were divisive. He should be better than that ... but unlike Roger Stone, Biden wasn't condoning violence, or calling for violence.

 

[volinbham]

Roger Stone's words clearly suggested that mob violence was an acceptable course of action to take in helping Donald Trump retain the presidency.

Joe Biden was being divisive and playing tribal politics. I don't condone that. It's poor leadership. Joe Biden isn't the President of the Democratic Party. Biden is the President of the United State, and he should speak to the American people as such. We have already had way too much of "Us and Them" in our nation's political discourse.

However, what Roger Stone said, and what Joe Biden said are indeed different.

Joe Biden did not suggest that violence was an acceptable course of action to take towards achieving a political objective. In fact, Joe Biden does not even mention violence at all, as Roger Stone clearly did. Roger Stone was explicitly calling for violence with his "Let's get right to the violence," remark. Whereas, Joe Biden never said any such thing.

You frequently draw false equivalencies. You have done so, once again.

Roger Stone did not say that to the public on a prime time speech and we don't know the context of which he said the word "violence" - what it was referring to. Biden on the other hand made angry pronouncements as leader of the free world. Which do you think could have more influence.

While we're talking about getting it wrong - can you explain how the comments of Stone were intended as a message extremists when he didn't make them publicly and we've just learned of them now? Secret time machine? It says directly in the article he made the comments to the film crew. Was he secretly recruiting them

 

[VolStrom]

Roger Stone and the like minded are indeed existential threats to democracy.
Hell, what's more of a threat do democracy than saying "to hell with the vote count, let's get to the violence"?

Define that term Mr School teacher and then relate how Roger Stone is one?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Roger Stone did not say that to the public on a prime time speech and we don't know the context of which he said the word "violence" - what it was referring to. Biden on the other hand made angry pronouncements as leader of the free world. Which do you think could have more influence.

While we're talking about getting it wrong - can you explain how the comments of Stone were intended as a message extremists when he didn't make them publicly and we've just learned of them now? Secret time machine? It says directly in the article he made the comments to the film crew. Was he secretly recruiting them

Joe Biden was angry ... but Biden did not condone violence, or call for violence. I don't see much need for additional context for Stone's remarks. He is clearly suggesting that violence is acceptable.

 

[volinbham]

Joe Biden was angry ... but Biden did not condone violence, or call for violence. I don't see much need for additional context for Stone's remarks. He is clearly suggesting that violence is acceptable.

To whom is he suggesting that? You still haven't explained how he "indirectly influenced" the Proud Boys/Oathkeepers with these words. How do his words bear any responsibility for something that happened long before we learned he said that particular phrase?

 

[hog88]

Yes, it clearly was.

Joe Biden did not suggest that violence was an acceptable course of action to take towards achieving a political objective ... and Roger Stone did.

Roger Stone is a powerless nobody compared to Biden so Biden’s words carry a helluva lot more weight.

 

[volinbham]

Roger Stone is a powerless nobody compared to Biden so Biden’s words carry a helluva lot more weight.

Somehow Stone communicated telepathically to militants and extremists.

 

[luthervol]

Let's be critical of Joe Biden, when he deserves it.

Biden's remarks were divisive. He should be better than that ... but unlike Roger Stone, Biden wasn't condoning violence, or calling for violence.

Biden should have been more clear that he was only referring to a segment of the republican party

 

[BowlBrother85]

Roger Stone is a powerless nobody compared to Biden so Biden’s words carry a helluva lot more weight.

True ... but Biden's words did not include a call to violence; nor did he condone violence. He basically just furthered an already existing divide between conservatives and liberals. A violent course of action, in response to his attack on Republicans, was never mentioned.

 

[hog88]

True ... but Biden's words did not include a call to violence; nor did he condone violence. He basically just furthered an already existing divide among conservatives and liberals. A violent course of action, in response to his attack on Republicans, was never mentioned.

Yeah but Biden put on a public display with props and special effects. I understand that RS said what he did to a couple people not knowing he was being recorded.

 

[volinbham]

True ... but Biden's words did not include a call to violence; nor did he condone violence. He basically just furthered an already existing divide between conservatives and liberals. A violent course of action, in response to his attack on Republicans, was never mentioned.

still ignoring the part about who heard Stone make that comment I see

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

🧐

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

I heard she reiterated her conspiracy that the election was stolen. Don't know how true that is, but sounds like she has answered some questions.