Tucker Carlson starts to divulge the Capitol video tapes

Looks like you missed some alerts.

 

No, Chris, I did not. It just takes me a lot longer to compose my much more comprehensive replies, than it takes you to just type a few words or, very often, a few questions for me to answer-- despite rarely answering those I pose to you. Take note, that in your next quote (since I was nearly done with my reply, when you posted this), I had combined two of your replies, together. That makes this one reply of mine, a response to 3 of yours. And yet, which one of us, is filling most of this post?

This is especially worth noting, because one of your replies is a link to another one of them, for which you were supplying evidence for your case, via news articles. However, instead of quoting those articles (which can take a little bit of time), all you supply are the links-- leaving it to me, to quote your articles, for my reply.

Lastly, by way of an "excuse:" when you do not provide a very thoughtful argument, it dampens my enthusiasm, for providing a long explanation, like this one, about something that I don't feel I should really even need to explain. But more about that, later.

I saw it, but was unimpressed, with the all of two examples you could come up with, to support your contention that all misreported news, in the MSM, "always tend to go one way...against one particular side of politics."
This was meant to represent your idea, of a "fulsome heap of examples?"

Neither of these, by the way were nearly as egregious as what Fox had done (with Tucker being one of those, leading the way) which was to 1) knowingly lie; and do so about a story that was 2) wholely false.


Your two examples are of attempts to get the truth, but in which the media's sources gave them some inaccurate details, but not such that they completely debunked the stories, which still had merit. So the comparison is not even close.

Also, it should be added, in those cases, the media had always, from the start, made it known that its sources were anonymous-- so the viewer could decide, with how much salt, they wished to take them. Lastly, the MSM had done a better job of correcting their errors, when harder data was found; unlike Fox's coverage of the Dominion story. So you can laugh at & shrug it off, all you want-- to any reasonable person, Fox (and Tucker) come off looking far less credible, than the rest of the MSM.


Here are the two stories, with which you thought you could tarnish the entire news media, to the degree in which Fox has sullied its own reputation: that is, so that it no longer has any credibility, and so that everything they report is suspect-- because they are known liars!


First, from the story of Trump's trying to interfere with the 2020 election results, you cite a story which originally claimed Trump had called Georgia's Secretary of State's office, and encouraged a worker to "find the fraud," which would make the person "a national hero." The later correction, was that Trump had called S.o.S. Raffensperger's Georgia office, but the wording he had used, to the employee, had been that she would be "praised," when the "right answer came out." Not exactly the difference between night & day.

Shall we compare that to saying that Dominion voting machines, might be switching votes, from one candidate, to another? And the source was not an unnamed person who worked for Dominion, but some batshit crazy lady, with even less connection to Dominion, than to reality.


<Snip>
The Post initially reported Trump had told an official working in Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's office to "find the fraud" in the state, which he lost narrowly to Joe Biden, and that she would be a "national hero" if she did.

However, a newly emerged recording of the Dec. 23 call found he didn't use those words. Instead, Trump said she would be "praised" when the "right answer comes out" and encouraged her to closely examine mail-in ballots in heavily blue Fulton County.
<End Snip>



Your other issue was the Steele Dossier. Again, this is an unfair comparison, because the Media had good reason to not know all the details right away: namely, because nobody did! The FBI, however, had given the overall document credence, so that had been a legitimate source for the media to use. It is a silly argument, that the media should have known better than the FBI, what parts of the Dossier were true, and which were not.

Once more, unlike the Dominion story, this Dossier has not been completely debunked. There was some accurate information in it. There is other info, which has simply not been verified, so we cannot be sure. But my recollection must vary from yours, because I do not remember any news host swearing that the stories of, for example, Trump being peed upon, by Russian hookers, was true. It was always portrayed as just an allegation, and not one that I cared much about, one way or the other.

It is not reasonable to expect perfection, in all news reported. What is reasonable, is to expect the media 1) to be transparent about their sources-- such as telling you it is an unnamed source, and that source's general connection to the story; or, as cited in your article, below, letting the viewer know that the info has not been confirmed. FYI, I hear that expression all the time: "The Washington Post is reporting...but this has not been independently confirmed by NBC News."

2) To be transparent in admitting their mistakes. Again, your article, while wanting the MSM to be even more contrite, makes clear that they are still far and away better than FOX, on this score. So I really don't know how you thought this article proved your point. Maybe if you had quoted the parts you'd found most persuasive, and paired that with your own argument-- the way that I am doing, here-- I would have better understood, your thinking.


<Snip>
Outsized coverage of the unvetted document drove a media frenzy at the start of Donald Trump's presidency that helped drive a narrative of collusion between former President Trump and Russia.

It also helped drive an even bigger wedge between former President Trump and the press at the very beginning of his presidency.
Driving the news: In wake of the key source's arrest and further reporting on the situation, The Washington Post on Friday corrected and removed large portions of two articles.

To The Post's credit, its media critic, Erik Wemple, has written at length about the mistakes made by The Post and other media outlets in their coverage of the dossier.

BuzzFeed News, which made waves in 2017 by publishing the entire dossier, says it has no plans to take the document down. It's still online, accompanied by a note that says “The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.”

Ben Smith, who was BuzzFeed's editor-in-chief at the time and is now a media columnist at The New York Times, told Axios, “My view on the logic of publishing hasn't changed."
BuzzFeed defended the decision in a 2018 lawsuit by arguing that because the FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, the dossier itself was newsworthy, whatever the merits of its contents turned out to be. It won that case.
<End>


And, finally, the viewer's own discretion, is an essential ingredient, in the consumption of news. As long as the sources of the information are disclosed, the viewer has a basis, for applying common sense. All the time, I hear speculations that I can easily recognize as speculations, from the MSM. But, for one who trusts FOX, they are not given those caveats, about things that "have not been verified," or that sources might be questionable. That is not just News, with a "spin;" that is propaganda.

 

Absolutely nothing at all here addresses the following from my previous reply that you are addressing:

1. I am saying that you chose the Sicknick case as the example, seemingly the worst example, of inaccurate reporting from the left side of the media aisle, while choosing the Dominion case for Fox. So now you have the opportunity to think really hard, and come up with a more significant example. Or is the Sicknick story about as bad as it gets for you?

2. How often do you see the media (non-Fox) misreporting something which makes the left look bad?

Is there some media study which backs up this claim that Fox never provides these sorts of caveats?

 

This thread is about Tucker Carlson & the previously unseen J6 footage, not about the MSM's biases.

All people have biases, that is unavoidable. Imagine, for example, that you have a friend, who favors a particular football team (you can even use that word to mean what we Americans call "soccer," if you like). When this friend gives you his opinion of a game, you will be able to recognize what statements jibe with your own impressions, versus which ones seem to have a slant, such as unwarranted complaints about the officiating. That discernment, is required of every human being, who listens to another human being. This includes viewers of news. But when the "game" being discussed, no longer bears any relationship, any true resemblance, to reality, then it is no longer News, but propaganda. That is what we are seeing, in Tucker Carlson presenting J6 as a "mostly peaceful protest." You have not offered any examples of the equivalent, among the MSM, of knowingly, presenting a false narrative. You have only pointed to some bad calls, or calls with which you disagree.

I cannot say, obviously, if they ever couch their comments in such cautions, but they did not do so, regarding the consequential story of 2020 election fraud, which fed into the outrage which made itself felt, on J6. Also, we know that FOX has not even acknowledged, to its viewers, that it is being sued by Dominion, for its irresponsible, inflammatory "reporting." Again, this bears no resemblance, to a real News station.

 

Then why are you talking about Dominion? Are you the only person who can include unrelated things?

Still not addressed:

1. Now that I have provided examples of misreporting by liberal media which make Republicans look bad, can you point to any misreporting by liberal media which goes the other way? You can't, can you?

2. I am saying that you chose the Sicknick case as the example, seemingly the worst example, of inaccurate reporting from the left side of the media aisle, while choosing the Dominion case for Fox. So now you have the opportunity to think really hard, and come up with a more significant example. Or is the Sicknick story about as bad as it gets for you?

Well they called the 2020 riots "mostly peaceful", which by your standards is "presenting a false narrative", given that you disagree with Carlson saying that the J6 protests was mostly peaceful.

 

DEFinning said: ↑
This thread is about Tucker Carlson & the previously unseen J6 footage, not about the MSM's biases.

Because Tucker & his network's behavior, in that recent, big lie, has direct relevance, as to Tucker's trustworthiness, honesty, & credibility.


This question of yours, by the way, is an example of those which I feel the answer is so obvious, there really shouldn't be any need for me to have to explain it to you. It's kind of like if the thread were on an OJ Simpson class on self-defense, and you became puzzled at my bringing up the murder of Nicole Brown-Simpson.

 

No, that is a false analogy, which you also express in an erroneous way. That is, I assume you mean to say, the 2020 BLM protests-- which is how you referred to the J6 gathering, "protests"-- instead of calling them "the 2020 riots" This is a perfect example of yourself, doing the very same thing for which you are faulting the MSM. We already went over this a bit. When one looks at the collective result, it is clear that the vast majority of BLM protestors committed no crimes, physically hurt no one, and did no property damage. A much higher percentage of the Capitol rioters, did one or more of those things.

Had you intended to refer only to those particular BLM protests, which descended into "riots," then my reply is that I find it highly unlikely that anyone called a riot, "peaceful." I would assume that your confusion comes from not understanding that one can accurately characterize an aggregate of things, without that description needing to fit every part of that aggregate. Hence, the word "mostly." I am only saying, in the case of J6, which was only one single event: that reflected a riot, like the worst, albeit just a minority, of the BLM demonstrations.

 

Still not addressed:

1. Now that I have provided examples of misreporting by liberal media which make Republicans look bad, can you point to any misreporting by liberal media which goes the other way? You can't, can you?

2. I am saying that you chose the Sicknick case as the example, seemingly the worst example, of inaccurate reporting from the left side of the media aisle, while choosing the Dominion case for Fox. So now you have the opportunity to think really hard, and come up with a more significant example. Or is the Sicknick story about as bad as it gets for you?

 

Correct. I did intend to say 2020 protests, not riots.

Just as the vast majority of J6 protestors committed no crimes, physically hurt no one, and did no property damage.

Evidence?

Yes, J6 was one single event. The event category being: protest.

 

Your sense of sequence is horrible. I have been waiting for about 20 pages, for you to explain the point of your questions, as they do not seem clearly related to this thread. They appear more like an attempt to make something else, the main subject of attention.

I have asked you this question, numerous times, including linking you to my post and telling you to answer its ending question-- which you ignored, when you replied to that linked post-- then later, when you claimed I'd never asked you this question, putting together for you, a long compilation of our entire conversation, to that point. You also quoted one of my re-statements of the question, set apart in its own color type, paired with my saying that I was here asking you the question, once more, which somehow left you uncertain as to what was the actual question. I had started to write a response to that, but it came across to me as a rant, inspired by your inexplicable obtuseness. I therefore have stopped harping on this, with you. But if you expect me to indulge this tangent of yours, you will first have to explain why it is relevant-- which I had asked from the get-go, and to which, you have still yet to offer any hint of a reply.

 

Do you not know how to use Google?

This is the reply to "number of people involved in BLM protests in 2020."

<Google Snip>

Polls have estimated that between 15 million and 26 million people have participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making them the largest protests in American history. It was also estimated that between May 26 and August 22, around 93 percent of protests were "peaceful and nondestructive".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
2020–2023 United States racial unrest - Wikipedia
<End>


Now, let's see if we can get a rough idea, of how January 6th matches up with that:

<Google Snip>

More than 2,000 rioters entered the building, many of whom occupied, vandalized, and looted; assaulted Capitol Police officers and reporters; and attempted to locate lawmakers to capture and harm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
January 6 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia
<End>

So, most people, when they say "the Capitol rioters," are referring predominantly to those who entered the building, or at least attacked it, not just any who stood out on the lawn, non violently. Of those 2,000, about 1000 have been charged with crimes (& at least half of those, already convicted)-- so that is nowhere close to BLM's 93% record.

But let me give you the most favorable depiction, possible. Those 2000, were all trespassing in the Capitol, and legally speaking, since the building was closed to visitors, all were also guilty of breaking and entering. Feel free to subtract the exact number of people who Tucker shows had the doors held open for them, by Capitol Police (even though I don't think that exonerated them, nor do I think it is worth arguing over a few people). So what does that leave us, 1,990 lawbreakers?

If that were to only represent 7% of the total "protest" (to match BLM's 93% number), that would mean that you are claiming there were approximately 26,438 others, "peacefully" protesting, a reasonable distance away from the building which, when the protestors arrived, had been cordoned off with barricades?

Your turn: Evidence?

 

What exactly is your question?

 

It is in the post, you just quoted. Try, maybe, reading it?

 

It's not my job to gather evidence for YOUR claims!

Okay, and what exactly is 'riotous' about just entering a building?

Oh, so then about 1000 confirmed rioters somehow got away with it! Interesting that isn't it!

Tucker didn't show any footage of police holding open doors for anyone. I have no idea what you're talking about. He didn't even claim that this occurred. Again, you clearly did not watch his report and are just relying on what you have been told by your trusted leftist media sources.

When did I make the claim that the percentage of peaceful protesters involved in the 2020 protests and J6 are exactly the same? Here is what I actually claimed: J6 was a mostly peaceful protest. Simple.

 

That post had no question mark in it. So yeah, there was no question.

 

That is because, since you need this explained to you: 1) Not everyone on video has been identified. 2) In order to arrest, a person, it is very helpful to know who that person is, and at least the state they live in.

Are there any other head scratching riddles, I can try to demystify, for you?


I am, however, going to stop now because, after your giving me such grief over it, I guess it must be a worthy principle to stand up for:
chris155au said: ↑
Still not addressed:

(that is, you have still not addressed my question to you, as to how your point relates to this thread's debate).

 

And I am sure that you have good reason to believe that there are about a thousand confirmed rioters who cannot be identified, and that this lack of identification is the only thing preventing them from being charged. They were ALL trespassers. But only SOME were rioters. FACT! And I do love your selective replying!

You can't even confirm your question. Again, your earlier reply contained no question mark! I will happily answer any CLEAR question that I am asked. As I have said before, the only thing that I am as good at as asking questions, is answering them.

 

Well?

 

I see that I need to go back to a more fundamental level, with you. Do you recognize that a question, is a request for information?
If so, do you not think that this can be clearly implied, without being in standard "question" form? Let me give an example. Let us pretend we are neighbors, talking outside of your house, when your sister pops by for a visit. Afterwards, I say to you that I was "wondering if your sister was spoken for, or seriously involved with anyone." Note, there is no question mark there; does that mean that you would not grasp the implied question: is your sister available? Please tell me, if you are just that lost, when it comes to questions, because I would assume that anyone would understand that. So, if you need special allowances made, it will save us both a lot of aggravation, for you to speak up, right now.

Just as in my example with your sis, I would have thought that what my "question" was, in the quote below (to which you objected that you saw no question mark, hence could find no question, in) should have been clearly self-evident :

DEFinning said: ↑
Your sense of sequence is horrible. I have been waiting for about 20 pages, for you to explain the point of your questions, as they do not seem clearly related to this thread. They appear more like an attempt to make something else, the main subject of attention.
<End quote>

So, you could not get from that, the implied questions: "what is the point of your questions?" And, "how do they relate to the thread topic?"

Again, if it is the case that even blatantly obvious questions like this, will fly over your head, without that particular mark of punctuation, I would like you to be clear, in telling me that you are unable to recognize any attempt to solicit information-- that is, any question-- without seeing a question mark. Once you confirm that this clue is vital to your picking up on another person's desire for information from you, I will make a point of accounting for this peculiarity, and not include you in the group of "anyone" who I expect would surely understand the implied question, even without a question mark.

 

I understand that question marks are not necessarily required, but they are helpful to be as clear as possible. I believe that you were not being as clear as you could have been. The real issue here is, that there are now multiple questions that you have either asked me, or said that you have asked me. There is no possible way that you have been waiting for about 20 pages for me to explain the point of my questions which I have repeated over the past 12 or so hours, all on this current page 44. That is because I first asked them on page 39, in this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-39#post-1074094815

And we are now on page 44. So it seems to me that you are getting totally confused with another question you asked, which is this one in purple:

Can you acknowledge this confusion?

 

What confusion, do you mean-- speaking of being as clear as one could have been? The part you quote, at the end of your post shows one version of my question, which had originally been asked to Ddyad, on page 21, IIRC, and which I pointed you to, after you had essentially been making the same point as him, 6 pages later, on page 27, I believe. That is why I'd said I'd been waiting for "about 20 pages."

You are too literal, in your reading, to think I had meant you had been asking me the most recent question, for 20 (actually 17 pages. What I again, believe that most people in your position would understand, was that I was saying that for that amount of time you had been asking me questions of this sort, along similar lines. You cannot honestly expect me to remember the exact wording of your questions, from 10 and 15 pages ago? And why is that even important? The point was, that from the very start you have been trying to make your argument about the MSM-- do you deny that? Is your most recent question, about the MSM? So then I don't see why you would be at all confused.

But getting back, to my later quote, in which you identified the question, but never answered it, I guess because I didn't respond, when you asked for me to confirm that it was the question. I didn't answer, because yours was such a bullshit question/request. Here is my quote, you'd been referring to, from your post, above:

DEFinning said: ↑
...
Even beyond that-- as I will now, hopefully, be repeating for the last time-- which acts of violence, led to which specific policemen, to be hospitalized or treated for which particular injuries, is something I see as minutia, as not really affecting the big picture, here. So that had been my question to you: what do these (relatively speaking) trivial discrepancies, all add up to, in your mind, as they relate to the overall January 6 narrative?*

You offered no answer, so I repeat that question.
<End Quote>

Do you not see that it ends with a question mark? I had even set it apart, in a different color-- what more do I have to do? Why on Earth would anyone need further confirmation? I say, at the end of the post, "I repeat that question." And if there is nothing coming after those words, then where does common sense dictate, the repeated question is? ANSWER: Right before those words. And, immediately preceding those words, is there a question? So then I don't know how I can speak to this "confusion," as it is clearly all on your own side. Let us look, once more, at what the colorized part says:

"SO THAT HAD BEEN MY QUESTION TO YOU: what do these...trivial discrepancies all add up to, in your mind, as they relate to the overall January 6 narrative?"

Do you understand the meaning of a colon? Because, when I follow "that had been my question to you," with a colon, that means, "get ready for me to state the question, I just mentioned." You had been citing mistakes in the MSM reporting-- including about the officer who'd died. You are still talking about him. So what is confusing you-- and what is the confusion that you want me to accept responsibility for (if that was the meaning of your asking me to "acknowledge this confusion"-- again, since you want to focus on hyper clarity, the meaning of that sentence is not particularly clear)?

No. First off, you had identified that question. You knew it was addressed to you; and yet you never answered it-- so much for your being nearly as good at answering questions, as you are at asking them. Even if this had been a new question-- why would you not answer it?

When you brought this question to my attention, my (inner) attitude had been, "close enough." I felt it would do, since you had failed since page 27, to respond, despite my bending over backwards, it seemed, for your clarification.

Yes, my question may have changed slightly, to better match your arguments, over 17 pages of your ignoring it, but really not much (see part 2, below), and it always comes down to, basically: "what's your point (as it applies to this thread's debate)?"





PART TWO
Just for the record, here is your post, which I respond to, on page 25, and my answer:

chris155au said: ↑
Well he wasn't killed THAT DAY was he?

DEFinning said: ↑
I never heard, from anyone in the media, that Sicknick had been "killed that day;" and certainly not from anyone on the J6 Committee, either. So what you all are trying to make, is the Ray Bolger of straw man arguments!
<End>

You answered that, on page 26, with the enigmatic reply "Get it now?" To which, I replied, on page 27:

As you see, I bring up my question, right at the start. This post, it turns out is 7 pages sooner, on page 20:

And there is my question, in purple, ending with a question mark, which I'd mentioned, along with the link to this post. You did reply, quoting this post, but without answering that question, which had been the whole point of the post. Or actually, you had tried to deny that anyone was questioning the the overall Capitol riot narrative (though we now know that you accept the B.S. "mostly peaceful protesters," description). But then my underlying question would still remain unanswered: What's your point?

chris155au said: ↑
Who is out there saying* that the fact that there is no evidence that Sicknick died as a result on the Jan 6 events, means that it was not an attack on the Capitol, or a riot/violent protest?
<End>

*Well apparently, you now are, Chris. You do not call it a riot, or a violent protest, but a "mostly peaceful protest." So your bullshit is here, revealed.

So, I'll ask one last time, what, then, is your point, of bringing up arguments about Sicknick, as it applies to the overall narrative if the Capitol riot and so, whatever clips of it, are shown by Tucker?

 

If one agrees with government attacking private business because they spoke out against his policies, an administration that was pushing to have females record and report their periods to the state, banning books, changing history to make it less racist, censorship of speech, pushing to make visitor logs private, pushing unconstitutional laws or targeting events because parents brought their kids to performances that you disagree with — that would move one past right wing to full on fascist.

 

It seemed that you were getting confused between different questions that you have asked. Maybe you weren't.

You said that you "have been waiting for about 20 pages" for [me] to explain the point of [my] questions." Well, back at that point in the thread, you were NOT in fact asking me the point of my questions. It is a completely separate part of the discussion! I wasn't even ASKING any questions back then!

And I don't. Again, I wasn't even ASKING any questions back then!

I'm not. I thought that you were. Maybe you're not.

Yes I did not answer, because you said that you had previously asked that question and I did not answer. So I first wanted to set the record straight, by explaining that I believe that this was the very first time that you had asked that question, and it turns out that it was.

Yes. But when have I ever said that this post did not contain a question?

Except it was the very first time that you were asking that question.

I was challenging the premise of your question, which is that the conservative take on the Sicknick misreporting, is that it: "means it really wasn't an attack on the Capitol, or a riot, or even a violent protest; they had basically just been sightseers." When that is not at all what we are saying. Certainly not me.

Oh, us conservatives definitely ARE questioning the overall BS Capitol riot narrative, which is that it was a "deadly insurrection."

I don't know how more clearly I can say it! It WAS a mostly peaceful protest, which included a violent riot! SIMPLE!

I will happily answer that once you admit that this is actually only the second time that you are asking it.

 

That so many citizens accept and defend the illegal actions of the federal government shows clearly the wisdom of the adage "Liberty (and justice) die to thunderous applause." Yes Virginia, we have the criminal government we deserve.

 

What does Virginia have to do with this?