Evidence is light, inconclusive, but there. Which isn’t unsurprising, given the “blue wall of silence.” I’m going to lean on trusting protestors and reputable news orgs and journalists over the government and criminal justice system. Just like I don’t think politicians in Russia just have bad luck with windows or coming into contact with poisonous substances.
there is no longer such as thing as “reputable news org”. For most online media, their sole revenue source are ads. Sensationalized articles generate more traffic. At best, you could say one org is better than the next, but that’s not saying much.
this article provides no photo, video, or audio recordings to corroborate anything they’ve stated. Not even the interviews have an audio recording.
there is nothing in that article about Trump instructing anyone to abduct protestors in unmarked vans.
there is nothing in this article about Trump ordering US Marshals to assissinate anyone.
It frightens me how much of your own bias colors your judgement. You have drawn wild “conclusions” (for a lack of a better term) based on something that is barely consider evidence (evidence maybe, certainly not proof).
Meh. Absolute proof only exists in mathematics. You have to make inferences at some point. To me, my “conclusions” seem obvious. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If the evidence of Trump’s character was only just one data point, I would just give them the benefit of the doubt. But, his campaign is promoting Nazi propaganda. He says he’ll be a dictator on day one. The heritage foundation says a second U.S. revolution is coming, which will be bloodless, if the “left” doesn’t fight back. There’s just so much evidence of Trump’s character, and the far-right’s stated plans, the “conclusion” os inescapable. Anyone who says otherwise is just putting on blinders or being willfully ignorant, IMO.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/michael-reinoehl-killing-investigation.html
Evidence is light, inconclusive, but there. Which isn’t unsurprising, given the “blue wall of silence.” I’m going to lean on trusting protestors and reputable news orgs and journalists over the government and criminal justice system. Just like I don’t think politicians in Russia just have bad luck with windows or coming into contact with poisonous substances.
This is as I suspected.
there is no longer such as thing as “reputable news org”. For most online media, their sole revenue source are ads. Sensationalized articles generate more traffic. At best, you could say one org is better than the next, but that’s not saying much.
this article provides no photo, video, or audio recordings to corroborate anything they’ve stated. Not even the interviews have an audio recording.
there is nothing in that article about Trump instructing anyone to abduct protestors in unmarked vans.
there is nothing in this article about Trump ordering US Marshals to assissinate anyone.
It frightens me how much of your own bias colors your judgement. You have drawn wild “conclusions” (for a lack of a better term) based on something that is barely consider evidence (evidence maybe, certainly not proof).
Meh. Absolute proof only exists in mathematics. You have to make inferences at some point. To me, my “conclusions” seem obvious. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If the evidence of Trump’s character was only just one data point, I would just give them the benefit of the doubt. But, his campaign is promoting Nazi propaganda. He says he’ll be a dictator on day one. The heritage foundation says a second U.S. revolution is coming, which will be bloodless, if the “left” doesn’t fight back. There’s just so much evidence of Trump’s character, and the far-right’s stated plans, the “conclusion” os inescapable. Anyone who says otherwise is just putting on blinders or being willfully ignorant, IMO.