January 6th Capitol Building Security Footage

[Bootstrap]

How do you know what Mike Johnson wants to project and doesn't want to admit to? Isn't stating negative things about the other side that you don't know to be true the sort of things political outrage machines do?

Edited to add: I basically agree with your assessment of Mike Johnson. But with all your admonitions to others to base what we say in facts because doing otherwise promotes political outrage, your statements about Mike Johnson sort of fly in the face of that admonition.

It's quite possible I have it wrong. I'm not a mind-reader. But when I look at the political imagery, that's what I think I see. Does that amount to political outrage to you? To me, it's definitely political cynicism, I don't think that politicians always say logically coherent things and I don't think they always mean what they say. But to me, that's different from partisan outrage.

How do you see that?

Do you have a better alternative understanding? If so, please share it.

[Grace]

The DOJ, the FBI, and the Jan. 6 Committee scoured all the tapes with faces shown. Some people committed crimes on Jan. 6, but a larger percentage of the people just walked peacefully into the capitol, let in by the police. Those people do not deserve to be attacked and persecuted by the government or by non government people.

[Bootstrap]

The DOJ, the FBI, and the Jan. 6 Committee scoured all the tapes with faces shown. Some people committed crimes on Jan. 6, but a larger percentage of the people just walked peacefully into the capitol, let in by the police. Those people do not deserve to be attacked and persecuted by the government or by non government people.

I agree.

[GaryK]

How do you know what Mike Johnson wants to project and doesn't want to admit to? Isn't stating negative things about the other side that you don't know to be true the sort of things political outrage machines do?

Edited to add: I basically agree with your assessment of Mike Johnson. But with all your admonitions to others to base what we say in facts because doing otherwise promotes political outrage, your statements about Mike Johnson sort of fly in the face of that admonition.

It's quite possible I have it wrong. I'm not a mind-reader. But when I look at the political imagery, that's what I think I see. Does that amount to political outrage to you? To me, it's definitely political cynicism, I don't think that politicians always say logically coherent things and I don't think they always mean what they say. But to me, that's different from partisan outrage.

How do you see that?

Do you have a better alternative understanding? If so, please share it.

I'm just pointing out that when others who are pro-Trump say things about the other side that are not based in fact you are quick to label it as part of the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine. I see what you just did as no different. You just violated your own rule.

You simply shared your opinion about Mike Johnson, who it is clear you don't care for, without basing it in facts. I have no problem with that because it is simply a political opinion. Others share there opinions about politicians they don't care for without basing them in facts. If you want others to be okay with your opinions, then why not give them the same courtesy?

[Bootstrap]

I'm just pointing out that when others who are pro-Trump say things about the other side that are not based in fact you are quick to label it as part of the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine.

Particularly when they seem to be saying that we all should be outraged.

I see what you just did as no different. You just violated your own rule.

Because I saw no particular need to be outraged? To me, a political outrage machine really should be promoting outrage. That's not what I am doing here.

You simply shared your opinion about Mike Johnson, who it is clear you don't care for, without basing it in facts. I have no problem with that because it is simply a political opinion. Others share there opinions about politicians they don't care for without basing them in facts. If you want others to be okay with your opinions, then why not give them the same courtesy?

Here's what I did: I asked what the political imagery says. Especially about Mike Johnson, the DOJ he clearly wants to portray as a danger, the J6 protestors who he clearly wants to portray as mostly innocent victims. Any 5 minute clip of Mike Johnson usually shows him positioning all of these things that way. And logically, what he says makes no sense to me. So I think it's likely to be about political imagery and positioning.

To me, that's more about critical thinking and taking political imagery seriously. I am not outraged by this - both sides do this. Even politicians I tend to like to do this, I really don't see that as a condemnation of Mike Johnson. You're right that I don't particularly trust him, but I don't think I'm encouraging outrage against him. I could be wrong about Mike Johnson, I am not a mind-reader.

But to me, thinking about political imagery is often an important part of basic critical thinking in the political realm. And basic critical thinking skills are important if we're going to play in these waters.

[Grace]

Oh, he knew or should have known. Politicians often don't speak logic, they speak psychological imagery instead. Mike Johnson wants to project the image that he is protecting J6 protestors against the DOJ. He does not want to admit that this is what he is actually doing:

Here's what I did: I asked what the political imagery says. Especially about Mike Johnson, the DOJ he clearly wants to portray as a danger, the J6 protestors who he clearly wants to portray as mostly innocent victims. Any 5 minute clip of Mike Johnson usually shows him positioning all of these things that way. And logically, what he says makes no sense to me. So I think it's likely to be about political imagery and positioning.

With the track record the current DOJ/FBI has for going after innocent people, whose political views they do not agree with, Mike Johnson doesn't need to project the DOJ in negative political imagery, they seem to have done that themselves. But you are right he probably is attempting to create that image.

After all it was the DOJ/FBI that developed a snitch line on parents who voiced their concerns at school board meetings. The attorney general's directive to the DOJ/FBI to go after parents came five days after the National School Boards Association wrote a letter to President Joe Biden asking for federal assistance in what the NSBA deemed "domestic terrorism" on the part of parents voicing concerns at School board meetings.

And it was the FBI, that on Sept. 23, 2022, early in the morning, the home of Mark Houck was raided by around 20 armed FBI agents. During the raid, Houck, a regular pro-life sidewalk counselor outside the Elizabeth Blackwell Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia, was arrested at gunpoint in front of his wife and seven children, ages 2 to 14. Mark Houck was later acquitted.

Some of the DOJ/FBI's actions have garnered the distrust of the people.

[GaryK]

I'm just pointing out that when others who are pro-Trump say things about the other side that are not based in fact you are quick to label it as part of the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine.

Particularly when they seem to be saying that we all should be outraged.

That's simply your opinion of what they are saying. Just because you believe that doesn't make it true. I really wish you would point to a post where you think they are saying we all should be outraged so that we can analyze it to see if your opinion is true.

I see what you just did as no different. You just violated your own rule.

Because I saw no particular need to be outraged? To me, a political outrage machine really should be promoting outrage. That's not what I am doing here.

No, but had that the same thing happened from a pro-Trump poster, I believe you would have labeled it as letting the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine influence what they say.

You simply shared your opinion about Mike Johnson, who it is clear you don't care for, without basing it in facts. I have no problem with that because it is simply a political opinion. Others share there opinions about politicians they don't care for without basing them in facts. If you want others to be okay with your opinions, then why not give them the same courtesy?

Here's what I did: I asked what the political imagery says. Especially about Mike Johnson, the DOJ he clearly wants to portray as a danger, the J6 protestors who he clearly wants to portray as mostly innocent victims. Any 5 minute clip of Mike Johnson usually shows him positioning all of these things that way. And logically, what he says makes no sense to me. So I think it's likely to be about political imagery and positioning.

To me, that's more about critical thinking and taking political imagery seriously. I am not outraged by this - both sides do this. Even politicians I tend to like to do this, I really don't see that as a condemnation of Mike Johnson. You're right that I don't particularly trust him, but I don't think I'm encouraging outrage against him. I could be wrong about Mike Johnson, I am not a mind-reader.

But to me, thinking about political imagery is often an important part of basic critical thinking in the political realm. And basic critical thinking skills are important if we're going to play in these waters.

You didn't ask what the political imagery says. You stated what Mike Johnson was doing. I'm fine with that opinion. I believe others would like for you to be okay with their opinions as well.