Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I just have a bit of an issue with this line. It is not quite fair or accurate to say there are 2 extreme “schools/camps” of media - the left wing and the right. Instead, I would say the MAJORITY of media sources were pretty much in agreement as to Trump’s venality and incompetence. The biggest problem IMO is that the more traditional/rational/fact-based media still benefits from presenting complex issues as simplistic “fights” between 2 groups. As I understand, that sort of distortion/oversimplification sells.
But I think I tended to believe the majority of the mainstream media, as opposed to the extreme views from the right. Does my characterization strike you as inaccurate and/or unfair?
I think my emotions are similar to those who say it needs more drama if it is intended to reach either the right OR those in the middle. But on reflection, I don’t think that really ought to be the aim. I think the ugliest result of Trump’s presidency is that it clearly revealed what a large percentage of Americans were ignorant and hate filled. I’m not sure anything will reach them other than concerted showings across the board that such ugliness - and violence - will result in significant negative implications. Trump, his followers, and his enablers MUST be punished in some significant way, to discourage them or others from attempting the same in the future.
In general, I would say that majoritarianism isn’t a great way to decide. The majority of news, in Russia, holds a certain view of things; the majority of doctors in the year 1500 had a certain view of things; and so on.
Everyone always wants a simple rule to live by: Go with the majority, go with the experts, go with the Democrats, go with the successful, etc. There isn’t a cheap and easy way to avoid having to do the real work of understanding the context of things. You can maybe mix a few groups and then work your way back - a majority of experts is likely to be your best bet in modern times, assuming that the experts believe in and use the scientific method properly - but if your aren’t also throwing in the scientific method with that then those experts over at the Catholic church take precedence over physics, because there are more Catholic experts than physicist experts.
My take is that for Trump supporters, there are only two media: Their True Source, and radical Left Wing, Deep State, America-Haters. When Sage_Rat wrote ‘You chose to believe the left wing media’, I took it as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the ‘lamestream media’ that Trump Supporters are always talking about; not that it’s actually Left Wing media.
Apparently the oft-repeated instructions to not hijack this thread with discussions not pertaining to the actual hearings are too difficult to follow, despite numerous mod notes and an adjacent thread created just for the purpose. Accordingly, this thread is closed until the next hearing on July 21st at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
This thread will reopen 2 hours prior to the hearing date and time of July 21, 2022, at 8:00 p.m. EDT.
P&E staff are tasked with balancing the interests of the OP, who is entitled to a thread that remains mostly on topic, against the interests of posters who wish to discuss things that may not have a relationship to the original topic of the thread. With that in mind, please let me clarify once again:
In the interest of maintaining a manageable focus in this thread, we will narrow the topic from this point forward to ‘what has happened, who has appeared, what has been said, and what it might mean.’ Speculative subjects should be covered in a separate thread, perhaps under the heading ‘who else should be called, what might they offer, why is the committee not calling them, etc.’
If you aren’t sure if your post is within these guidelines, it’s better to post it in the adjacent thread. Here is a link to the adjacent thread:
I freely admit there may have been better ways to run this discussion. Hindsight is always 20/20. But this is what we’ve got, so let’s please ensure it stays on topic. Thanks.
From what I’ve gathered, it sounds like tonight will be a discussion of what Trump and other politicians were doing during the riot.
Apparently, many of those right wing congresspeople who later dismissed this as a trivial matter will be shown on video cowering in fear. It is intended to embarrass them.
I’m also hoping that we get video of Trump gleefully watching the attack. That I’m not as sure of - we may only hear testimony about these facts.
(I believe that two witnesses we will see are both staffers who resigned after 1/6, ostensibly as a response to witnessing Trump’s support for the insurrection).
The names of the witnesses AIUI are Matthew Pottinger, a deputy national security advisor, and Sarah Matthews, a press aide. Both resigned in the wake of the insurrection, pointedly stating the insurrection was the reason why.
So far, all of the news has said that it’s going to be a in-depth account of Trump sitting in his underpants, eating cheeseburgers and watching TV - to cheer for the rioters - for about three hours.
All of which sounds like a less-than-interesting entry in the series and thus a strange one to put down as the ultimate and prime time entry, so I feel like there must be something else to it?
And I’m hoping we hear how horrified they were watching Trump’s reaction. It’s not just that there was an insurrection; it was the glee with which Trump reacted.
Sounds like tonight will be all about laying the groundwork for a “dereliction of duty” situation. As if, in a sane world, that required proof regarding Trump and the insurrection. (NOT a band name.)
I also remember that Rudy came over and he and Trump worked the phones, trying to get senators to vote to overturn the election, WHILE the riot was going on.
Maybe there’ll be more details about that.
I’m still hoping that – in the realm of composition or storytelling – this isn’t a slightly more minor/less critical point that takes the focus off of how actively involved he was leading up to (and on) 1/6.
There’s so much commission. I hope it isn’t diminished by the details of his omission – no matter how shocking the omission may be to most of us.
I just heard a commentator put it well. He said he hoped that no one on the Committee tonight would refer to it as Trump “doing nothing.” In fact, ginning up an insurrection and controlling the whole thing, then standing back and letting it all burn should not be characterized as “doing nothing.” I so agree.