DJT indicted on four counts related to January 6

mick joggerrr wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

Reading the thread and the posts from people who think this is just politics, a witch hunt, a weak indictment, etc., has left me with a few conclusions about these people.

Either;

1) They have not read the indictment, have no idea what he will be charged with or the elements that must be proven, and have taken their position from partisan sources that are deceiving them. Then they parrot those sources.

Or;

2) They have read the indictment but are extremely poor readers or lack the cognitive capacity to understand a very simple, straight-forward document.

Or;

3) They are dishonest brokers who understand the indictment but will obfuscate and lie because they can't attack the actual substance but they feel a need to defend their Dear Leader.

It is like someone has been charged with shoplifting and they are presenting the defense, "You can't PROVE he murdered someone so this is a political hit job!"

this seems very accurate to me. Most fall into #1. They don't like what they will find so they will never read it.

Keep in mind that an indictment, while not infallible by any means, cuts through the cable news spin zone. You can't just go and say sh!t in and indictment like you can do on fox news. Everything you are putting in there is because you have solid unassailable proof and you will share it if asked. This too is likely why the won't read it. They like being lied to because it is what they want to hear.

mick joggerrr wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

Reading the thread and the posts from people who think this is just politics, a witch hunt, a weak indictment, etc., has left me with a few conclusions about these people.

Either;

1) They have not read the indictment, have no idea what he will be charged with or the elements that must be proven, and have taken their position from partisan sources that are deceiving them. Then they parrot those sources.

Or;

2) They have read the indictment but are extremely poor readers or lack the cognitive capacity to understand a very simple, straight-forward document.

Or;

3) They are dishonest brokers who understand the indictment but will obfuscate and lie because they can't attack the actual substance but they feel a need to defend their Dear Leader.

It is like someone has been charged with shoplifting and they are presenting the defense, "You can't PROVE he murdered someone so this is a political hit job!"

this seems very accurate to me. Most fall into #1. They don't like what they will find so they will never read it.

Keep in mind that an indictment, while not infallible by any means, cuts through the cable news spin zone. You can't just go and say sh!t in and indictment like you can do on fox news. Everything you are putting in there is because you have solid unassailable proof and you will share it if asked. This too is likely why the won't read it. They like being lied to because it is what they want to hear.

jimmy jesus angleton wrote:

mick joggerrr wrote:

this seems very accurate to me. Most fall into #1. They don't like what they will find so they will never read it.

Keep in mind that an indictment, while not infallible by any means, cuts through the cable news spin zone. You can't just go and say sh!t in and indictment like you can do on fox news. Everything you are putting in there is because you have solid unassailable proof and you will share it if asked. This too is likely why the won't read it. They like being lied to because it is what they want to hear.

I'm on my way to getting drunk and realize this may be potentially just tangential to whatever the top of this thread is... but I do have a genuine question. It feels like the 2016 election really unveiled the powerlessness and disconnect of the established print media and the 2020 election kind of just furthered that demo, but is cable news the next domino to fall? I've been living abroad for the last 15 years, so I'm sure I am out of touch. When I visit my family in the US, my aunt and uncle have a giant tv blaring one of the news channels 24/7, but I assumed that is a generational thing? Anyway, is cable news' influence waning?

Trollminator wrote:

jimmy jesus angleton wrote:

I'm on my way to getting drunk and realize this may be potentially just tangential to whatever the top of this thread is... but I do have a genuine question. It feels like the 2016 election really unveiled the powerlessness and disconnect of the established print media and the 2020 election kind of just furthered that demo, but is cable news the next domino to fall? I've been living abroad for the last 15 years, so I'm sure I am out of touch. When I visit my family in the US, my aunt and uncle have a giant tv blaring one of the news channels 24/7, but I assumed that is a generational thing? Anyway, is cable news' influence waning?

The public faces a 2-tiered problem with respect to mainstream media.

First, there are no ethical standards for cable news here. Networks that air publicly like ABC must adhere to certain requirements/limitations that cable news networks don't. So a network can call itself news like "FOX News" and not deal in news at all. In fact, the networks don't primarily deal in news and openly operate as entertainment networks. If you recall Tucker even won a legal battle by admitting that he can't be believed. The problem is the masses still think they report factual news. Therefore, the "facts" you get depend on the network you tune into. A lot of older folks are totally fooled by that and can't make any distinction.

Second, social media and other entertainment platforms have been cutting deeply into the cable news market share. Since most of these networks are pure entertainment anyway, a lot of people can more conveniently tune into their favorite social media personality or "news" stream to get their fix of rage. This is even more problematic than the issue above because social media is a sea of lies and mis/disinformation.

To summarize, facts are dying in this country and so are those who prefer them over entertainment.

Trollminator wrote:

The public faces a 2-tiered problem with respect to mainstream media.

First, there are no ethical standards for cable news here. Networks that air publicly like ABC must adhere to certain requirements/limitations that cable news networks don't. So a network can call itself news like "FOX News" and not deal in news at all. In fact, the networks don't primarily deal in news and openly operate as entertainment networks. If you recall Tucker even won a legal battle by admitting that he can't be believed. The problem is the masses still think they report factual news. Therefore, the "facts" you get depend on the network you tune into. A lot of older folks are totally fooled by that and can't make any distinction.

Second, social media and other entertainment platforms have been cutting deeply into the cable news market share. Since most of these networks are pure entertainment anyway, a lot of people can more conveniently tune into their favorite social media personality or "news" stream to get their fix of rage. This is even more problematic than the issue above because social media is a sea of lies and mis/disinformation.

To summarize, facts are dying in this country and so are those who prefer them over entertainment.